Warfare during the Old Kingdom

Ideology of sacred warfare

The Pyramid Texts¹ are a collection of Old Kingdom funerary prayers and rituals designed to assist the king in obtaining eternal life in the realm of the gods after death. The surviving texts are composed of nearly a thousand “spells” or “utterances” dating to roughly two centuries spanning the reigns from Unas {2404–2374} through Pepy II {2300–2206}. Many scholars believe, however, that some of the texts may have originated centuries earlier – the first surviving copies are thus rather late versions. Although primarily ritual and religious in purpose, they contain a number of passages describing weapons and the martial virtues of the king, thus providing us with insights into the ritual and ideology of Old Kingdom warfare.

Warfare in ancient Egypt was not perceived as merely the struggle between the mortals; it was theomachy – the war of the gods. As in the Iliad and Mahabharata – or the Bible, for that matter – the gods themselves came to earth and intervened in battle to assist the king. The gods gave the king a divine mandate to conquer and rule the entire world. An inscription from the mortuary temple of king Sahure makes the divine mandate for foreign conquests clear. In this inscription, a god addresses king Sahure, proclaiming: “I grant thee all western and eastern foreign lands with all the Montiu bowmen who are in every land” (EWA 137).

The war god Horus particularly aids the king in battle: “May you be mighty in Upper Egypt as is this Horus through whom you are mighty; may you be mighty in Lower Egypt as is this Horus through whom you are mighty, that you may be mighty and protect yourself from your foe” (PT 645). The victory in battle of the king over his enemies is frequently described in mythic terms relating to the archetypal combat between Horus and his enemy, the god Seth.

[Horus] has driven back the heart of Seth for you, for you [the king] are greater than [Seth].… [Horus] has caused the gods to protect you, and Geb has put his sandal on the head of your [defeated and prostrate] foe, who flinches from you. Your son Horus has smitten him, he has wrested his Eye [the mythical talismanic Eye of Horus] from him [Seth] and has given it to you.…

Horus has caused you to lay hold of your foes, and there is none of them who shall escape from you.… Horus has laid hold of Seth and has set him under you on your behalf… Horus has caused you to examine [Seth] in his inmost parts, lest he escape from you; he has caused you to lay hold of him with your hand, lest he get away from you. (PT 356)²

And again:

O Osiris the King, mount up to Horus … [for] he has smitten Seth for you bound … Horus has driven him off for you, for you are greater than he.… Horus has protected you, and he will not fail to protect you.

(PT 357; see also 364, 606)

In the end, its seems that even the gods must surrender to the overwhelming power of the divine king: “The gods come to me bowing, the spirits serve me because of my power; they have broken their staffs and smashed their weapons [in submission] because I am a great one” (PT 510).

Commanders faithfully serving the pharaoh would likewise be aided by the gods in battle. Sabni, the “Commander of the Foreigners”, describes himself as “herald of the words of [the wargod] Horus to his following”; he is metaphorically a weapon wielded by the gods, the “throwstick of Horus in foreign lands” (AEAB 17). The king, and indirectly his duly appointed commanders, were in reality the representatives of the war god Horus. His commands reflected the will of the gods, not merely political or military decisions of human beings. The pharaoh and his commanders were the weapons of the gods to do their will on earth.

The propaganda of the king as the ideal warrior and athlete is particularly well represented in the mortuary statues of the three great builders of the pyramids of the Fourth Dynasty. Enthroned or standing, the mortuary statues of these kings depict the idealized, well-muscled physiques of powerful young warriors, symbolizing the ideal of the pharaoh as warrior-king.³ Ritually the king was the ideal athlete – the strongest and fastest man in the kingdom (SGAE 19–59). From Pre-Dynastic times the king's physical prowess was demonstrated by a ritual run associated with the Heb-sed festival, the Jubilee or festival of renewal of the king's power and authority, in which the king was required to run around set markers to demonstrate his physical strength. One of these Heb-sed running tracks is preserved south of the pyramid of Djoser at Saqqara, in what seems to be the oldest formal racetrack in history (EDE 212–15).

Military organization in the Old Kingdom (EMO 32–6)

R. Faulkner has rightly noted that “regarding the organization of the army during the Old Kingdom there is not a great deal of evidence” (EMO 32). There is, none the less, sufficient to give us a broad understanding of the subject. Much of our knowledge on military ranks and commissions comes from tomb autobiographies, from which we learn that there probably was not a professional military officer class in the Old Kingdom. Rather, courtiers and government officials served in a wide variety of religious, administrative, legal, economic, and military capacities, according to the immediate needs of the state.

The most fully documented example of such a mixed military-civilian-religious-administrative career comes from the autobiography of Weni (AEL 1:18–22; EMO 34–5). Weni began his career as “custodian of the storehouse” under king Teti, rising to the office of inspector and “overseer of the robing-room” under Pepy I (AEL 1:18–19). Thereafter he became “senior warden” of Nekhen, serving as a judge as well. He then became “overseer of the royal tenants”, and was a judge in a case involving charges against the first wife of Pepy I. He thus already had a distinguished career as administrator and judge before beginning his military duties, probably in his thirties (AEL 19). After distinguishing himself in several campaigns in Sinai and Canaan, he became governor of Upper Egypt, in which capacity he supervised or led expeditions to Nubia for granite, and to Hatnub for alabaster, along with digging canals, boat-building, and negotiations with Nubians (AEL 1:21–2). Weni's career is thus the classic Old Kingdom example of the Egyptian practice of having courtiers and officers assigned to tasks on an ad hoc basis – scribe, administrator, judge, governor, explorer, engineer, diplomat, miner, ship-builder, priest, and soldier, all combined into one.

Other autobiographies give hints of the same type of ad hoc recruitment of military officers. The autobiographical inscription of Meten, from the Third Dynasty Mastaba at Saqqara, describes his roles as administrator, judge, and governor, noting as well that he served as “commander of the fortress of Snt”, “governor of the stronghold Hsn”, and “governor of the Cow-stronghold” (ARE 1:77–8), indicating that civil administrators served as garrison commanders of the fortresses in their provinces. Mention is also made of commanders of individual arsenals and fortresses, as well as a “commander of the affairs of the fortresses” who seems to have had broader authority over fortifications throughout the kingdom (EMO 36). The tomb of Ka-aper contains an inscription describing the presence of”the scribe of the king's army” during expeditions (EWA §41), indicating the presence of literate military officers providing logistical and administrative support on Old Kingdom campaigns. Military and other official positions could be inherited from father to son. Ibdu and his father Merire-onekh were both military commanders (ARE 1:139), as were Heqaib and his son Sabni (AEAB 15–17).

It is unclear if the Egyptian army was organized into formal, permanent military units. Rather, it seems that each nome or province of Egypt was required to muster a certain number of troops for a military campaign, and that these troops were commanded by the government officials of those nome. Egyptian armies were thus organized on a provincial basis with soldiers serving with their kinsmen, friends and neighbors (EMO 32; AEL 1:19). This regional military organization with nomarchs in command of their own provincial troops seems to have laid the foundation of semi-autonomous nomarch military power which would contribute to the fragmentation of Egypt during the First Intermediate Period. Whether these provincial troops were purely irregular militias or included professional soldiers stationed in the provinces is unclear (EMO 33). These Egyptian troops were frequently supported by Nubian and Libyan mercenaries (EMO 33).

The only military unit mentioned during the Old Kingdom was the teset (tst), a battalion or regiment; this seems to be a general term for any ordered body of soldiers rather than a technical term for a formal military unit of a specific size (EMO 32). Soldiers are generically known as meshe^c (mš^c), while the only regular officer mentioned is the imy-r mš^c, the “commander” or “overseer of the soldiers” – perhaps roughly “captain” or “general”. This title is held by commanders of quarrying expeditions as well as more strictly military campaigns (EMO 33–4).

Weapons

Our knowledge of weapons from the Old Kingdom period, and, indeed from all of Near Eastern military history, comes from three sources: archaeology, artistic depictions of weapons, and texts. A section of the Pyramid Texts describes the ritual clothing and arming of the king in preparation for religious ceremonies and battle, and gives us a detailed description of elite Old Kingdom armament. In general the king is described as being equipped with weapons like those of the gods (PT 68, 222). Paralleling representations in royal iconography, the king wears sandals (PT 106), a kilt or loincloth and belt (PT 57L-O, S, 58, 59A, 225), and is sometimes described wearing a “tail”, which probably alludes to bull tails attached to the back of the belt as depicted in the Narmer palette and other Early Dynastic art (PT 57N-O, S). He also occasionally wears a “leopard-skin” (PT 469, 485). The king receives four different types of “mantlets” associated with fighting, which may be some type of shield (PT 71F-I).

The three primary royal weapons in the arming ritual and other parts of the Pyramid Texts are mace, bow, and dagger. The most frequently mentioned weapon is the mace, which the king's “fist grips” in preparation for battle (PT 412, 512, 555, 675). There are several types: mẖn-mace, ḏsr-mace, izr-mace, (PT 62–4; LA 3:414–15). It is impossible to tell precisely what is meant by these different mace names. They may refer to different structural designs or military functions, but it is more likely a reference to art motifs or engravings, ritual function, or perhaps even a personal name for the weapon, like naming King Arthur's sword Excalibur.

Archery is particularly associated with the war god Horus. Horus is “Lord of the Bows” (PT 437), and “the shooter” of the bow (PT 659). In mythical stories he “draws his nine bows” against snake demons (PT 385).⁴ The king, as Horus's counterpart on earth, is “he who draws the bowstring as Horus and who pulls the cord as Osiris” (PT 390). In the ritual arming ceremony the king is given several different types of bows (iwnt and pḏt), bowstrings and arrows (PT 57A-H, 71G).

Two types of dagger are mentioned in the ritual arming text: Mp̱n(t)-dagger and M3gsw-dagger, (PT 57Q-R). One knife is described as “black” (PT 290), which may refer to the obsidian or dark flint of the blade. In battle, the king “bears a sharp knife which cuts throats” (PT 251). Like other weapons, the king's daggers parallel those of the gods, such as the “knife of Seth” (PT 666A, 674). The dagger is described as delivering the coup de grace to the king's enemies: “Sharpen your knife, O Thoth, which is keen and cutting, which removes heads and cuts out hearts! He will remove the heads and cut out the hearts of those who would oppose themselves to me” (PT 477).⁵

All the archaeological evidence indicates that the weapons in Old Kingdom Egypt were in a transitional phase between Neolithic and Bronze Age. While copper daggers and axes are known, most daggers, maces, and projectile points used by the ordinary soldiers of this period still seem to have been made of stone. In this context the frequent mention of iron in the Pyramid Texts is, at first glance, puzzling. The gods in heaven sit upon an “iron throne” which the king shares in the afterlife.⁶ In heaven the king receives an “iron scepter” (PT 665C), and the god Horus wears “iron bands on [his] arms” (PT 214). In the resurrection the king's bones will be made of iron (PT 570, 684, 724), strong and everlasting. The gates to the gods’ celestial castle are protected by “doors of iron” (PT 469). Although the earthly realm of the king is perceived as the mirror image of the celestial realm of the gods, these texts should not be understood as reflecting the real weapons of the king. The Egyptians understood that meteoric iron fell from heaven – it was sometimes called “copper from heaven” (EAE 2:183). Thus, heaven, the realm of the gods, was the place where iron came from; indeed, the metal is described as “god's iron” (PT 38), while the very firmament of heaven is itself made of iron (PT 509). Heavenly weapons and other items made of iron would be the celestial counterparts of earthly weapons made from stone or copper. During the early Old Kingdom the weapons of the gods were of iron, those of the king and nobles of copper, while those of most common soldiers were of stone.

Combat

Once the arming ceremony was complete the king set out for battle. Several texts seem to describe a pre-battle ceremony in which the King opens the city gates, marshals and counts his soldiers (“slayers” or “slaughterers”), and then marches to defeat the enemy.

The bolt is opened for you in the double Ram-gate which keeps out the [enemy] peoples; may you number the slaughterers [in your army] (PT 611). The six door-bolts, which keep Libya out, are opened for you; your iron scepter is in your hand that you may number the slayers, [and] control the Nine Bows [enemy nations] (PT 665C). Your scepter is laid in your hand that you may open the bolt in the double Ram-gate which keeps out the Fenkhu [“Phoenicians” or Canaanites]. May you number the slayers, may you control the Nine Bows. (PT 716)⁷

When the army marched to confront the “Nine Bows” – a generic term to describe all the enemies of Egypt – the king was, naturally, always victorious in battle; at least this is what the Pyramid Texts would have us believe. “I have subdued those [enemies] who are to be punished, I have smitten their foreheads, and I am not opposed [by enemies] in the horizon” (PT 251) – the Egyptian way of saying to the end of the earth. In battle the king will always “smite [the enemy], destroy them, drown them on land and sea” (PT 717), an interesting possible reference to river or naval battles. In the end, “the bowmen … are felled” (PT 231) by the king's army, and “the [enemy Nine] Bows bow to” the king in submission (PT 693), an act also depicted on some martial reliefs.

Battle scene from Inty's tomb⁸

Two scenes from tombs, probably dating to the late Old Kingdom, provide fascinating glimpses of tactics and siegecraft in this period. The first, and most illuminating, comes from the tomb of Inty (Inti) at Deshasheh in middle Egypt. Although the inscription is lost, most scholars believe the scene depicts a siege in southern Canaan. The scene is divided into two halves. The left half, in four registers, depicts a battle outside the city – presumably leading up to the siege. The right half shows the siege itself. Inty's siege mural gives us our best understanding of both the tactics of combat and methods of siegecraft in the late Old Kingdom.

The upper register is partly lost, but depicts Egyptian soldiers advancing over wounded Canaanite enemies who are pierced with arrows. The next two scenes show Egyptians fighting the Canaanites. Here the Canaanites are stumbling and fleeing in disarray from the Egyptian attack. All are pierced with multiple arrows; one has six such wounds. None of the Canaanites offers serious resistance; the orderly Egyptians are all armed with axes, marching through and dispatching the Canaanites with blows to the head, neck, and shoulders. The Canaanites seem to be armed only with bows, although one or two may have other weapons (the murals are badly damaged, leading to some uncertainty in interpretation). The fourth and lowest register, possibly reflecting events after the successful siege, depicts bound prisoners of war – men, women, and children – being led off to captivity in Egypt.

In both of these scenes the numerous arrows stuck in the Canaanites imply that some Egyptian soldiers had bows. Most of the Egyptians carry axes; none are shown with a shield, spear, mace, or dagger. They wear kilts, but no other armor or helmet. The Canaanites likewise have no armor or shield; they too wear a kilt and are distinguished from the Egyptians only by their longer hair and headbands. In terms of weapons technology, the implication of the Inty mural – confirmed by that of Kaemheset – is that the stone-headed mace, which had been the pre-eminent weapon during the Early Dynastic period and early Old Kingdom, had been largely superceded among common soldiers by copper-headed axes by the late Old Kingdom, as copper became more available and less expensive.⁹ The axe-heads in the two battle scenes are of two types; examples of both have been discovered from archaeology (EWW 35; EAE 2:407; BAH pl. 2–3). The first, sometimes called the “epsilon” (E-shaped) axe, has a long and broad blade (AW 1:146, 154–5, 168–71; FP 49); the second type has a semi-circular blade sometimes described as “eye”-shaped (AW 1:12, 147; BAH 22–3). The proportional relation of the haft to the size of the Egyptian soldiers implies the haft was 50–75 cm long. It is shown wielded with either one or two hands. Both of these weapons seem to have been known to the Egyptians as mibt in the Old Kingdom and minb in the Middle Kingdom (EG 511, sign T7).¹⁰ It is not clear if this shift in terminology merely reflects a change in pronunciation, or is related to the difference between the “epsilon” and “eye” styles of axes.

Battle tactics

Whereas the autobiography of Weni shows us the sophisticated strategy of the Old Kingdom, the Inty siege mural allows us for the first time to get a glimpse of Old Kingdom battle tactics, if only inferred from a hypothetical reading of the narrative scene. The battle began with a missile barrage from archers. Although no Egyptian archer is actually depicted on the surviving portions of the scene, the upper half of the first register is lost, and the four advancing soldiers in that panel may have been archers. However that may be, every Canaanite soldier is wounded by multiple arrows, implying massed archery by the Egyptians. The individual effectiveness of Egyptian arrows, however, seems to have been rather limited. None of the Canaanites is armored, and although there appears to be one man killed by archery – struck by six arrows in the legs, back and head – several Canaanites have three or four arrow wounds and are still alive and resisting. One is still fighting with two arrows in his leg, one in his arm and two in his head. This implies that the wounds from arrows were not very serious, and therefore that either the arrows were shot from a great distance, or they did not have great penetrating power, or both. The effectiveness of Egyptian archery was thus most likely based on the large number of arrows shot at unarmored targets.

When either the missile supply was exhausted, or the enemy was sufficiently disorganized and debilitated, the axe-armed Egyptian infantry advanced into a melee. The two middle registers show a chaotic melee in the heat of battle, but the damaged upper register shows Egyptian soldiers advancing into combat in ordered ranks. It is unclear if the Egyptian army at this time had separate regiments specializing in archery or axe combat. One man holding the siege-ladder and another supervising the mining operation both have their axes stuck in their belts behind their backs, allowing them to use both hands. The Kaemheset mural, discussed on pp. 362–3, also shows the Egyptians putting the haft of the axe in their belts leaving their hands free to climb a ladder. Since no Egyptian is shown with a shield or a bow, it is possible that the Egyptian soldiers were double-armed with bow and axe. They first exchanged missile fire with the enemy, then dropped their bows, drew their axes from their belts, and charged. On the other hand, it is also possible that the archers simply are not depicted in the melee scene, having remained in the rear when the axe-armed shock infantry advance into battle.

Fortifications¹¹

Fortifications (wmtt, EG 496, sign O36; and mnw) are found in Egypt in Pre-Dynastic times, and were well developed by the Old Kingdom. Many, if not all, cities were fortified with mud brick walls; one archaic hieroglyphic symbol for a city is simply a turreted wall (HEA 1:48, 177–8). The mud brick walls (inb, EG 496, sign O36) were up to five meters thick, with numerous projecting bastions and towers (tsm); gateways (sbh˘t, EG 494, sign O13) were heavily protected by mud-brick towers as well. Principles of concentric fortifications were understood by the Egyptians. The city walls of Buhen in Nubia included a central keep, the main wall with eighteen projecting semi-circular towers, a dry moat, and a barbican 65 meters from the main wall (AEA 40).

A number of archaeological remains of Old Kingdom fortresses have survived (Figure 9). The fortified city of Balat in the Dakhla Oasis had rectangular city walls (110 × 230 meters) with a separate citadel on the south (AEA 26). The Nubian frontier was the most highly fortified – or at least has the best surviving examples – which have been studied in great detail before they were submerged by Lake Nasser and the Aswan Dam (FB). The First Dynasty fortress on Elephantine Island at Aswan – sometimes called the “southern gate” to Egypt – continued in use during the Old Kingdom. The city itself was surrounded by a wall with semicircular towers, which followed the contours of the terrain of the island. A separate 53,× 53 meters citadel added to the defensibility of the site (AEA 81). In addition to the Elephantine fortress at the First Cataract, three Old Kingdom fortresses were constructed in northern Nubia itself: Ikkur (82 × 110 meters) (AEA 115), Kubban (70 × 125 meters) (AEA 132), and Aniba (87 × 138 meters) (AEA 18; HEA 1:178). Ikkur and Aniba had dry moats and semi-circular towers. The spectacular fortress of Buhen in Nubia (150 × 70 meters) dates to the Middle Kingdom, and will be discussed below (pp. 443–5). However, the Old Kingdom town at Buhen (120 × 950 meters) was also fortified, with eighteen surviving semi-circular towers and a barbican 65 meters from the main wall (AEA 40). In general, fortified mud brick walls are essentially the same as the enclosure walls of temple complexes, of which several examples have also survived.

Figure_9 Mud-brick city walls at El-Kab, Egypt {c. 1600–1000}. Although these wellpreserved fortifications date to the New Kingdom, the basic size and structure are similar to earlier Middle Kingdom city-walls Source: Photograph by William Hamblin.

Texts of the Old Kingdom provide some additional information about fortifications and siegecraft. Egyptian titles from Old Kingdom mortuary inscriptions include officers who were responsible for the garrisons and upkeep of fortresses, such as the Third Dynasty “commander of the stronghold of Snt”, “commander of the stronghold Hsn in the Harpoon Nome”, and commander of the “the Cow Stronghold”. These titles indicate that there were fortified sites in various nomes of Egypt, even though the surviving archaeological evidence in the Nile valley is sparse (ARE 1:77–8). Other titles mentioning fortresses include: “Commander of the Desert Keeps and Royal Fortresses”, and “Commander of the Way(s) of Horus”, which was the road through the northern Sinai to Canaan (EAE 1:553).

The Pyramid Texts, which have been introduced above, also contain important – though rather mythical – allusions to fortifications and siegecraft. Specific historical fortifications are possibly mentioned in the texts. The king “is the Great Bull who smote [the city of] Kenzet” in Nubia (PT 205). An allusion to the “Fortress of the Bitter Lakes” (PT 366) – the lakes and marshes between modern Suez and Port Said (AAE 167) – indicates that the western frontier was fortified against incursions from the Sinai during the Old Kingdom. This may be related to the “double Ram-gate” which “keeps out the Fenkhu [Canaanites]” (PT 716). There is another fortress “which keeps Libya out” of Egypt as well (PT 665C). Vague details of fortress design are alluded to in the texts. The “double Ram-gate” is bolted shut (PT 611); one fortress gate has “six door-bolts” (PT 665C). Standing on the ramparts in defense of his fortress, the king is described as “a great falcon which is on the battlements” (PT 627).

The most frequent allusion to fortifications in the Pyramid Texts is the mythic “Castle of the Mace of the Great Ones [gods]” to which the king gains entrance during his ascent to heaven (PT 262, 600, 611, 665). It is also called the “castle of the Mace of p3’r wood” (PT 219), and is frequently associated with the god Thoth.¹² What is important from the military perspective is that the gods in the celestial world dwell in a fortress-palace (PT 322); the king on earth, who imitates the gods in all things, does as well. The king's fortress-palace at Memphis may be the earthly counterpart to the gods’ heavenly “Castle of the Mace”.

Siegecraft (LA 3:765–86)

The mural from the tomb of Inty, introduced on pp. 358–9, also shows a siege in progress.¹³ Having lost the open battle, the surviving defeated Canaanites fled to their fortified city, depicted as walled with regularly-spaced, semi-circular projecting towers. Following their victory in the field the Egyptians assaulted the city, using two different siege techniques. First, as also described in the Pyramid Texts (discussed on pp. 353–4), they placed a tall siege ladder against the wall for an assault. In the Inty relief the assault has not yet begun. The siege scene from the tomb of Kaemheset at Saqqara, however, complements our knowledge of Inty's siege scene.¹⁴ Here the wooden ladder is apparently on wheels – though how the axle could rotate while the ladder remained stable is unclear from the illustration. The wheeled ladder is braced by a man wedging it in place with a thick piece of wood, while five soldiers ascend the ladder. All five wear brown kilts and are unarmored and unshielded. All are also armed with axes. Rather than climbing over the wall into the city, two of the soldiers seem to be hacking at the brick wall with their axes.

The second siege technique shown in both the Inty and the Kaemheset reliefs is undermining the base of the wall. Here Egyptians with long wooden beams or crowbars are attempting to dislodge the mud bricks from the base of the wall, hoping to get the wall to collapse and form a breach. Given that all fortifications from this period were of mud brick – although some had stone foundations at the base – undermining a wall would only have been a matter of time, though such efforts could have been seriously hindered by stones and missiles thrown by defenders from the top of the wall. Thus both the Inty and the Kaemheset reliefs show the same siege techniques: a ladder assault combined with undermining the brick wall.

The reliefs also give us important information about defending fortified cities. The defenders in the Kaemheset relief are divided into four registers, but unfortunately the upper two panels are severely damaged. They possibly show soldiers throwing stones or javelins, or shooting bows at the Egyptian assaulters. The third panel depicts the herds of the Canaanites – cattle, goats, and donkeys – being brought into the city for safety, and being fed from a pile of grain. The fourth panel seems to show the women and children of the city being given a grain ration.¹⁵ The Inty relief is even more evocative of life in a besieged city, focusing on the important role of women in logistical and medical support for the army. The first panel shows a woman extracting an arrow from a wounded Canaanite soldier, probably one who had escaped the battle that is depicted on the left side of the relief. The second panel shows a woman embracing (or throttling?) a returning soldier, and the women and children mourning before the Canaanite king on his throne.¹⁶ In the third and fourth panels the women are again helping wounded soldiers, one who is staggering from his wounds. In the last scene some men are listening at the wall opposite to where the Egyptian soldiers are undermining from the outside. The lower left corner of the wall shows three semi-circular bastions in close proximity where the Egyptians are attempting to undermine, which may represent either additional towers used to strengthen a weak section of the wall, or a gate flanked by protecting towers.

The after-life ascent of the king into heaven is occasionally described in imagery that is probably associated with siegecraft. The king storms heaven like a fortress (PT 255, 257); he “overthrows the ramparts [of the heavenly fortress], he removes the ramparts” (PT 667C), and “demolishes the ramparts of Shu” (PT 509), probably by undermining as shown in the siege reliefs. In the process the king boasts he “will smite away the arms of [the god] Shu which support the sky and I will thrust my shoulder into that rampart on which you lean” (PT 255). One text describes how the “King takes possession of the sky, he cleaves its iron” (PT 257), probably alluding to the “doors of iron” (PT 469) of the heavenly castle. As noted above, these references to iron in the Pyramid Texts are probably mythical – since meteoric iron falls from heaven, iron is the metal of the gods. It is quite possible, however, that Old Kingdom fortress doors were reinforced at their joints and bolts with copper bands.

The gods sometimes assist the king in his victorious conquest of this mythic fortress by the use of siege ladders. In one text the four Sons of Horus aid the king in his siege by preparing both wooden and rope ladders for the king:¹⁷

[They] tie the rope ladder for this King, they make firm the wooden ladder for this King, they cause the King to mount up [to heaven] … [The wooden ladder's] timbers have been hewn by Ss3; the lashings which are on it have been drawn tight with the sinews of G3swty, Bull of the sky, the rungs have been fastened to its sides. (PT 688)

In attacking the celestial fortress, the king “sets up the ladder” (PT 333), which the gods hold steady for him (PT 304). These textual references to the use of ladders in siegecraft are confirmed by contemporary military art from Deshasheh and Saqqara, discussed above, both of which show men assaulting city walls with ladders held firm by other soldiers at the bottom.

Treatment of prisoners (LA 3:786–8)

After the battle, “the enemies are hunted down” (PT 724), and the prisoners brought bound before the king (PT 222, 357) under the “guard of the prisoners after the great battle” (CT 493). The Coffin Texts describe a magical spell designed to prevent capture in battle, providing a description of the treatment of prisoners: “you shall not be imprisoned, you shall not be restrained, you shall not be fettered, you shall not be put under guard, you shall not be put in the place of execution in which rebels are put” (CT 23). Captured enemies might be physically abused, even tortured, and their corpses mutilated and dismembered; mercy is unthinkable. The king is promised by the gods that he “will not be hanged head downwards” (PT 694), apparently a reference to the public exposure of the corpses of enemies. The treatment of prisoners is often described in mythic terms relating to the tale of the primordial combat between Horus and Seth. Horus “bound [Seth's] legs and bound his arms and threw him down on his side” (PT 485B). He “sets [Seth, the King's] foe under your feet” (PT 368, cf. PT 371). The king's enemy “is smitten by the children of Horus, they have made bloody his beating, they have punished him” (PT 369). Captive Seth is castrated (PT 570), and dismembered: “Horus has cut off the strong arms of your foes and Horus has brought them to you cut up” (PT 372). Although these are mythic narratives, there is no reason to think the Egyptian kings did not do these types of things to their real enemies, as depicted on several of the artistic sources mentioned earlier.

The fate of the enemies of pharaoh is described in gruesome, and almost gleeful detail in the Pyramid Texts:

I am stronger than they … their hearts fall to my fingers, their entrails are for the denizens of the sky [carrion birds], their blood is for the denizens of the earth [carrion animals]. Their heirs are [doomed] to poverty, their houses to conflagration … But I am happy, happy, for I am the Unique One, the Bull of the sky, I have crushed those who would do this against me and have annihilated their survivors. (PT 254)

In the Horus–Seth combat myth, Horus takes revenge for the death of his father Osiris, who is later resurrected by his wife Isis (EAE 2:188–91). “O Osiris the King, I bring to you him [Seth] who would killed you; do not let him escape from your hand.… A knife is made ready for him … he having been cut three times” (PT 543, cf. 545). Torturing the defeated enemy Seth is described as retaliatory revenge for the torture Seth had previously inflicted when he temporarily defeated Osiris.

O my father Osiris this King, I have smitten for you him [Seth] who smote you … I have killed for you him who killed you … I have broken for you him who broke you.… He who stretched you out is a stretched bull; he who shot you is a bull to be shot …. I have cut off its head, I have cut off its tail, I have cut off its arms, I have cut off its legs. (PT 580, cf. 670)

Such mythic texts represent a military worldview in which retaliatory raids and personal revenge on enemies were a positive moral responsibility.

The most ghastly passage in the Pyramid Texts is the so-called “Cannibal Hymn” (PT 273–4), which describes the king dismembering, cooking, and eating the bodies of his enemies to absorb their spiritual power.

The sky is overcast,

The stars are darkened,

The celestial expanses quiver,

The bones of the earth-gods tremble,

The planets are stilled,

For they have seen the King appearing in power …

The King is the Bull of the sky,

Who conquers at will,

Who lives on the being of every god

Who eats their entrails …

The King is a possessor of offerings who knots the cord [binding captives] And who himself prepares his meal;

The King is the one who eats men and lives on the gods …

It is “Grasper-of-topknots” who is Kehau,

Who lassoes them for the King

It is “the Serpent with raised head”

Who guards them [the prisoners] for him [the king]

And restrains them for him;

It is “He who is over the reddening” [blood-letting]

Who binds them for him;

It is Khons who slew the lords

Who strangles them for the King

And extracts for him what is in their bodies …

It is Shezmu who cuts them up for the King

And who cooks for him a portion of them

On his evening hearth-stones;

It is the King who eats their magic

And gulps down their spirits;

Their big ones are for his morning meal,

Their middle-sized ones are for his evening meal,

Their little ones are for his night meal,

Their old men and their old women are for his incense-burning;

It is the Great Ones [circumpolar stars] in the northern sky

Who set the fire for him

To the cauldrons containing them

With the thighs of their oldest ones.…

[The King] has traveled around the whole of the two skies [the whole earth],

He has circumambulated the Two Banks [of the Nile]

For the King is a great Power.…

The King has appeared again in the sky,

He is crowned as Lord of the horizon;

He has broken the back-bones

And taken the hearts of the gods …

The King feeds on the lungs of the Wise Ones,

And is satisfied with living on hearts and their magic …

He enjoys himself when their magic is in his belly …

Lo, their souls are in the King's belly,

Their spirits are in the King's possession …

Lo, their souls are in the King's possession,

Their shades are (removed) from their owners.

Here we see martial cannibalism, with the king taking bound captives, slaughtering and dismembering them, and finally cooking and eating them to obtain their magical power. The cannibalization of defeated enemies is also mentioned in passing elsewhere: “I will eat a limb from your foe, I will carve it for [the god] Osiris” (PT 477). A variant on the “Cannibal Hymn” is found again in the Middle Kingdom Coffin Texts (CT 573).

The imagery of warfare in the Pyramid Texts describes a world filled with magical and divine power where the gods intervene in battle for their son, the king. The victorious king is merciless to his enemies, rejoicing in their downfall and suffering. For the ancient Egyptians war certainly was a physical activity in the material world; but it was also much more. For the Egyptians, war was a heady mixture of violence, religious ritual, magic, and divine sanction and intervention. War was a ritual act by which the mythic combat of Horus and Seth was re-enacted, and, through the king's ultimate victory, the cosmic balance of the universe maintained. The gods had granted pharaoh the authority to rule the world, and the king's enemies were the enemies of the gods.

Maritime developments (EBS 21–6; SP 26–69)

Egyptian ships of the Old Kingdom ranged from small three-or four-man papyrus fishing skiffs to large cedar oared and sailing ships capable of sailing throughout the eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea. The oldest fully preserved ship ever found from this region is the royal ship buried near the pyramid of Khufu {2584}, intended to be used by the king in the afterlife.¹⁸ This 43-meter vessel was buried in specially designed pits to the south of Khufu's pyramid. Made entirely of cedar wood imported from Phoenicia, it was designed for river travel and was propelled by oars that also survive. A complex system of nautical knots and lashing was used on the boat (FP 29). Its purpose was probably ritual rather than military, but it none the less stands as a remarkable example of Egyptian shipbuilding skill in the Old Kingdom. Sea-going vessels were larger and propelled by sails (SP 63–9), as seen from a depiction in the tomb of the Vizier Mehu {2330?} from the early Sixth Dynasty (EWP 89); the tomb of Inti also depicts a large vessel under sail (EBS 24).

It is clear that Egyptian maritime capacity developed significantly during the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties. This is reflected in three trading and exploration expeditions. A marble vessel bearing Userkaf's {2513–2506} name was found in the island of Kythera in the Aegean, the earliest indication of maritime contact between the Minoans and Egyptians – though it may have been brought to the Aegean later than Userkaf's reign (EAE 2:588b). Sahure's {2506–2492} funerary temple at Abusir depicts naval vessels returning from an expedition to Phoenicia, probably from Byblos bringing valuable cedar wood (ECI 52, EBS 23). Sahure also undertook the first recorded Egyptian naval expedition to Punt, the south-western coast of the Red Sea, which returned with “80,000 measures of myrrh, 6000 measures of electrum, 2900 measures of malachite, and 23,020 measures of [text lost]” (PS 168). Djedkare Izezi {2436–2404} likewise undertook trading expeditions to both Phoenicia and Punt. Although none of these maritime expeditions were strictly military affairs, the distinction between trading, exploring, mining, and warfare was rather vague in ancient Egypt. It is quite likely that each of these maritime expeditions had a military component, if only a company of soldiers, to protect the ships. More importantly, the ongoing maritime trade to Phoenicia and Punt provided the foundation for the capacity of the Egyptian navy to move large bodies of troops in true amphibious operations. This culminated in the Sixth Dynasty with the amphibious operations of Weni in Canaan {c. 2340}, discussed on p. 340.

We have funerary inscriptions of two naval captains, Inikaf and Khenty, from Sixth Dynasty Coptos. Among other ritual and administrative functions, both are described as “One who puts the Fear of Horus [the King] into the Foreign Lands, who brings the treasure of the King from the Southern Lands” (ICN 31, 33), reflecting the dual function of naval captains – warfare and trade. “Putting the fear of Horus [the King] into foreign lands” is often a euphemism for military action which intimidates the enemy, while “bringing the treasure” refers to either plunder or trade.

River combat undoubtedly remained the most important aspect of naval warfare during the Old Kingdom. Some indication of the nature of ship-to-ship combat can be found in some interesting jousting scenes and harpoon hunts from Old Kingdom tombs at Saqqara.¹⁹ Fishermen often used long poles to propel their bundled papyrus skiffs in the marshes and shallows of the Nile. In the murals some of the fishermen are depicted using their poles to propel their ships, others use the long poles to jab their rivals or swing them overhead. When two skiffs collide, the fishermen are depicted as wrestling on the bow (TEM 53; SP 97). A least part of the goal is to knock the opponent into the river, from which some of the fishermen are being recovered by their friends (TEM 53). The hippopotamus-hunting scene from the tomb of Mereruka at Saqqara (EWP 93; ISP 13, 42; SP 94) shows papyrus craft approaching three hippopotami from two different direction. They have used ropes to either lasso or hook the hippos, and have long harpoons raised overhead in preparation for the kill. Although neither the jousting nor the hunting scenes are strictly military, if we add the use of archery from on board ship, these scenes provide our best window into the rough and tumble melee of Egyptian river warfare.