The military system of the Middle Kingdom

Ideology of sacred warfare

Throughout ancient Egyptian military history, victory in battle was attributed to the will and blessings of the gods.¹ The king is described, in an ideological and ritual sense, as ruling the entire earth: “may fear of you resound in the lowlands and the highlands, for you have subdued all [the lands] that the sun encircles!” (AEL 1:230), which was the Egyptian way of describing the entire world. Although there are certainly elements of boasting and perhaps megalomania in these types of claims, within the limited geographical knowledge of Egyptian society during the Old and Middle Kingdoms the Egyptian king was, in many ways, ruler of the entire world. Enemies from Canaan, Libya, or Nubia are frequently described as “rebels” against the god-given rule of the Egyptian world-king. The conceptualization of the king as divinely established ruler of the world is the central martial ideology of the Egyptians, and is reflected in a number of ways in their texts.

Montuhotep I {2061–2011}, founder of the Eleventh Dynasty, reported that his conquests were accomplished “by [the power of the god] Horus” (MKT 28). The twenty-first-century tomb of Meru reflects this same attitude in a pious inscription proclaiming “a good beginning [for the new Eleventh Dynasty] came about when [the Theban war god] Montu gave both lands [of upper and lower Egypt] to King Montuhotep” (OHAE 132). This intimate connection between the kings and the gods was most clearly reflected in texts describing the king's deification in temple inscriptions. In the thirty-ninth year of his reign {2022}, Montuhotep celebrated a great festival commemorated in the Shatt er-Rigal relief, taking upon himself the glories of godhood and using the title of Sematawy – “He who unites the Two Lands [of Egypt]” (C1/2:479–80; MKT pl. 12). He is remembered in later Egyptian legend as a god who restored unity and glory to Egypt (Man. 34).

Inscriptions by many other kings reflect the same belief that the gods have established the power of the king and granted him victory in battle. The “Loyalist Instruction” {c. 1790}, an ideological statement emphasizing the proper respect for the king, advocates that all men must venerate the king, for “he is the sun god under whose governance one lives … It is [the gods’ divine] power that fights for him [the king]. His ferocity emits dread of him [to his enemies]” (TS 238). Antef II {2118–2068} was also careful to honor the gods and to stress that his authority derived from them. In two hymns to Re and Hathor, Antef claims that he is the “deputy” of Re, and is “honored by Osiris, son of Re” (AEL 1:95). Amenemhet's coup and foundation of the Twelfth Dynasty {1991} was likewise divinely ordained. The king “appeared like [the god] Atum himself that he might restore what he had found in ruins [in Egypt]” (AIB 152). Likewise, victory in battle was given by the gods to their fellow god Senwosret I {1971–1928}: “[The war-god] Montu, lord of Thebes [says]: ‘I have brought for you, beneath your feet, Good God [Senwosret I], all the countries which are in Nubia’ “ (ARE 1.247). On a pectoral of princess Mereret, king Senwosret III {1878–1843} is depicted as a griffin-like creature, with the hawk-head of the war god Horus, and the body of a lion, mauling cowering Canaanites (TEM 137, 139).

Special deities were entrusted with the defense of the Egyptian frontiers for each of the four cardinal directions:

Those [enemies] who shall come against you from the South shall be driven off by Satis, Lady of Elephantine [Aswan; guardian goddess of the southern frontier], who will shoot at them with her arrows, which are painful and sharp.

Those who shall come against you from the North shall be doomed to [the gods] Hekes and to Hephep.

Those who shall come against you from the East shall be doomed to Sopd, Lord [and guardian of the frontier] of the East, and they shall be driven off with your knives in them.

Those who shall come against you from the West shall be doomed to Ha, Lord of the West, and they shall be driven off by the striking-power of Atum in his ascendings from the horizon. (CT 313)

The Coffin Texts (EAE 1:287–8) present precisely the same ideology of the gods commanding the kings to go to war and granting victory in battle. “I have gone up and have set my [defeated] foes under my sandals, that I may have power over them, in accordance with what [the sun-god] Re commands for me” (CT 87). Horus, in particular, is invoked as war god (EAE 2:119–22). “I have assaulted and conquered the horizon by my own hand … The kingship on the thrones of Horus is given to me, he shoots down the slaughterers for me” (CT 256). “Horus will not let you perish; Horus has set your [defeated] foes under you[r feet]” (CT 835).

The ideology of the king as the divinely predestined conqueror is most clearly enunciated in a temple building inscription of Senwosret I {1971–1928}. Royal conquests were undertaken at the explicit command of the gods.

I [the king] will set firm decrees for [the god] Harakhty²

He [Harakhty] begat me to do what should be done for him,

To accomplish what he commands to do. …

I am a king by nature …

I conquered as a youth …

He [Harakhty] destined me to rule the people [of Egypt] …

Mine is the land, its length and breadth,

I was nursed to be a conqueror.

Mine is the land, I am its lord,

My power reaches heaven's height.

I am his [Harakhty's] son and his protector,

He gave me to conquer what he conquered.

He [the god] will enrich himself [with tribute and plunder from conquests]

Because he made me conqueror.

I will supply his altars on earth [with offerings provided from plunder].

(AEL 1:116–17 = VAE 40–3 = ARE 1:241–5)

The king's role as triumphant defender of Egypt is similarly lauded in a hymn to Senwosret III {1878–1843} as divinely ordained protector:

How great is the lord of his city:

He is unique and millionfold; a thousand other men are little! …

Lo, he is a rampart, walled with copper of Sinai! …

Lo, he is a shelter, rescuing the fearful from his enemies! …

Lo he is [the god] Sekhment against his enemies who have trespassed his boundaries!

(VAE 46–7)

On the other hand, despite claims of divine kingship, the pharaohs were sometimes subject to quite ordinary plots and coup attempts. After Amenemhet I was assassinated by his own guardsmen {1962}, his ghost appeared to his successor Senwosret, warning: “Do not approach them [your subjects] when you are alone! Trust no brother! Know no friend!” (TS 207). Even god-kings, it seems, were potentially subject to the effects of an assassin's dagger.

Evidence of divine support and blessings on military campaigns was believed by the Egyptians to be manifest through omens in nature. On his expedition to Wadi Hammamat, the vizier (and later pharaoh) Amenemhet I recorded two prodigies from the god Min. In the first, “a pregnant gazelle” wandered into the midst of the army camp and gave birth directly on the large stone block they were quarrying. The animal was promptly sacrificed to Min (ARE 1:212 = ECI 71–2). In a similar way, other animals were sacrificed before battle (AEAB 54).

A second wonder was apparently a flash flood, bringing divinely provided water to the army in the desert:³

The power of this god [Min] was seen and his might manifested to the plebs: the upland was turned into a lake, and water arose over the hard stone. For a well was found in the midst of the valley, ten cubits [c. five meters] square, filled with water to its brim.… It had been bypassed by the former expeditions of kings … Only to His Majesty [Amenemhet I] alone was it revealed [by the gods].

(ECI 72 = ARE 1:216)

Although this specific omen did not occur in a military context, it represents the supernaturalistic orientation of most Egyptian warriors, where unusual natural occurrences are interpreted as signs from the gods. The importance of divination through prophecy and oracular dreams is reflected in a number of texts, such as the “Prophecy of Neferti” (TS 134–9; AEL 1:139–44) and the “Instructions of Amenemhet” (TS 206–8; AEL 1:136–8), which have been discussed on pp. 391–4. We should assume that belief in the importance of omens, dreams, and divination was an integral part of the martial mentality of the age, and could affect troop morale for good or ill.⁴

Although generally reflected in royal propaganda, the divine-king ideology of the Egyptians had an impact on the rank and file as well. As servants of the pharaohs, commanders and even common soldiers were also entitled to the blessings of the gods. A royal inscription included an invocation by king Amenemhet III to the gods for the safety of his army on an expedition to the Sinai: “O you who live on earth, who shall come to this Mine-land [Sinai]! As your king has established you, as your gods favor you, may you arrive home in safety” (ARE 1:318). An officer, Amenemhet son of Ibeb, records his personal thanks to the gods for his successful expedition: “I came to this highland [in the Eastern Desert] in safety with my army by the power of [the god] Min, lord of the highlands” (RA3 16; ARE 1:313). The Egyptian ideology of divine favors and omens could have an important impact on the ordinary soldiers as well, who believed their gods would intervene for them in battle. In military crises, belief in omens and promises of divine aide could improve or undermine the morale of troops, thus indirectly contributing to victory or defeat.

Execration Texts and war magic⁵

The belief that the gods controlled the fate of kings and nations is reflected in another body of evidence known as the “Execration Texts”. The image of the smiting or trampling of bound captives was a mainstay of Egyptian ritual art for over 3000 years, with such images appearing on temple walls, tombs, doorposts, thrones, statues, footstools, canes, chariot decorations, and sandals (MAEM 112–36; PSE; MB). While many of these images had artistic or ceremonial purposes, they none the less reflect the brutal reality of the ritual execution of defeated enemies. These monuments may represent the actual execution of real war-captives, but they are also ritual acts, designed not only to commemorate previous victories, but to guarantee future victories. This ritual smiting of enemies was also practiced vicariously by priests, who used figurines for magical cursing of enemies. From the military perspective, the Execration Texts are examples of military magic, or “spiritual warfare”, designed to defeat enemies through supernatural rather than merely material weapons. These texts and figurines – made of clay, stone, alabaster, wood, and wax – are broadly similar to “voodoo dolls”. A curse was magically bound to an image, and transferred to the actual enemy through the destruction or burial of that image. Of these, those made of wax would have left almost no identifiable archaeological remains. Alternatively, clay pots were also inscribed with the curses and names of enemies, and then ritually destroyed.⁶ There are over 1000 surviving examples of pots and figurines used for the ritual cursing of enemies, covering almost of the entire range of Egyptian history (MAEM 137).

The essential purpose of the Middle Kingdom Execration Texts was to curse the enemies of Egypt “who may rebel, who may plot, who may fight, who may think of fighting, or who may think of rebelling on this entire earth” (MAEM 140). Curses are issued against all the traditional enemies of Egypt – Nubians, Easterners, and Libyans – as well as any potential internal Egyptian rebels. Some curses are generic, against entire peoples, tribes, cities, or regions. Others are focused on specific individuals. The curses are formulaic and standardized, with a type off ill-in-the-blank format for the name of the enemy. Even the dead, who have potential supernatural power as hostile ghosts, are cursed in some of these texts (VAE 126; CS 1:52).

An important collection of Execration Texts from the Middle Kingdom was discovered at the Egyptian fortress at Iken (Mirgissa) at the Second Cataract, which includes burial pits with shattered pots and figurines (MAEM 153–80). Presumably these cursing rituals were performed by Egyptian priests assigned to the frontier garrisons. A decapitated human skull was also discovered, indicating the ritual sacrifice of a Nubian prisoner as part of the cursing ritual; significantly, many of the figurines were also headless (MAEM 162–3). Burial upside down without the severed head was a particularly abhorrent form of netherworld cursing from an Egyptian funerary perspective, and thus represented a particularly vicious form of curse meant to destroy the enemy not only in this world but in the next (MAEM 168–72). An archaic form of this practice may be seen in the Narmer Palette {c. 3050} which shows rows of bound, decapitated prisoners with their severed heads between their legs.⁷

The Execration Texts are generally quite formulaic; the following is a typical example:

[A curse upon] every rebel who plans to rebel in the entire land: all the Medjai [Nubian nomads of the south-eastern deserts] of Webat-sepet; all the Nubians of [the tribes or provinces of] Wawat, Kush, Shaat and Beqes, their [elite warrior] heroes, their [light infantry] runners, all Egyptians who are with them, all the Nubians who are with them, all the Easterners who are with them … all the foreigners who are with them, all the [Libyan] Tjemhu of the western hill-countries of Libya, of [the Libyan chiefs?] Hekes and Hebeqes, their heroes and their runners.

(VAE 125–6)

This text includes the interesting reference to “Egyptians who are with” the Nubian enemies, perhaps indicating that there were frontier renegade Egyptians serving with Nubian armies and raiders.

A similar type of Execration Text is found in the Coffin Texts, a collection of Egyptian rituals designed to preserve the soul in the afterlife.⁸

“May your soul be strong against [your enemy].… May you break and overthrow your foes and set them under your sandals.” [These words are] to be spoken over a figure of the foe made of wax and inscribed with the name of that foe on his breast with the bone of a Synodontis fish: to be put in the ground in the abode of Osiris [in Abydos].

(CT 37)

The Coffin Texts describe a heady mix of war, magic, religion, shape-shifting shamanism, and cruel human sacrifice which was probably not uncommon in mythic idealizations of Egyptian warfare.

It is granted that I have power over that foe of mine so that I may conquer him in the presence of the people who came to contend with me by means of the magic spells which were on their lips. I have appeared as a great falcon [the god Horus], I have grasped him [the enemy] with my talons, my lips [beak?] are on him as a gleaming knife, my talons are on him like the arrows of [the lion goddess] Sekhmet, my horns are on him as the Great Wild Bull … [I] alight upon his spine, I cut his throat in the presence of his family, I take out his heart unknown to them, for I am a human falcon.… See, I have come and I have brought my [defeated] foe, I have crushed his family, I have thrown down his house, I have crushed his surviving children, I have crushed his cultivator who is in his field. The spirits are glad; Osiris is joyful when he sees me mount aloft as a falcon.

(CT 149, cf. CT 995)

Weapons were often viewed not merely as physical objects but as things having a spiritual or magical power as well. Kings could be invested with special weapons as divine gifts from the gods.

This strong arm of yours is in the realm of [the creator god] Atum. Receive your weapons in your hand [from the gods] ; … Smite this killer … with the strength and might of yours, with this power of yours … for I [the king] am [the god] Atum equipped with my [divine] weapons.

(CT 586)

Magical spells were also used to ward off the power of enemy weapons, such as throwsticks (CT 418) or knives (CT 335b.2).⁹ One spell from the Coffin Texts promises immunity from arrows:

I am one mighty and aggressive.… I am one more powerful than you, so prepare a path for me. I am a vindicated one who serves Him of blood; I am a man of a million who cannot be seen by those about him who shoot arrows.

(CT 1145)

It is likely that many Egyptian warriors used such magical prayers or charms which were intended to protect them from enemy weapons and magic.

From the Egyptian perspective, the ritual cursing of enemies and the invocation of magical protection was a natural part of any military campaign, simply another form of invoking the aid of the gods in battle – always the ultimate source of victory in war. In another sense, however, these texts may also represent an early form of “psychological warfare”, in which the morale of the Egyptian soldier could be hardened by priests and magicians calling blessings upon the Egyptians and curses upon their enemies. At the same time, the morale of enemy troops might suffer with the knowledge that Egyptian magicians and priests were cursing them. Similar attitudes are perhaps reflected in the Bible where, during the Exodus, the Israelites, although certain of the ultimate superiority of their god Yahweh, none the less believed that Egyptian priests and magicians had real magical powers (Exodus 7.11–12, 22, 8.7, 18).

From the perspective of military history, these types of magical text not only give us an insight into war magic and psychology, but also provide a type of enemies-list, showing the regions of military concern for Middle Kingdom Egyptians (ECI 87–93). These texts confirm our other historical data, that Nubia and Canaan are the regions of central military concern, with Libya in the Western Desert a distant third.

The Execration Texts against Canaan and Syria are particularly rich in lists of cursed places and rulers, providing a brief snapshot of the political and military situation in Canaan during the eighteenth century (ANET 328–9; CS 1:51–2). It is clear that most of Canaan and Syria were divided into a number of independent or semi-autonomous city-states ruled by Semitic-speaking peoples, most of whom were considered to be at least potential enemies to Egypt. Some curse-lists give two to four entries for the same city, each listing a different ruler (CS 1:51–2). These are presumably either several different leaders of the same city – king, priest, general, or minister – or perhaps represent an updating of the lists; when one ruler dies his name is kept on the list to curse his ghost, while his living successor's name is added. The implications of these texts for understanding the political and military situation in Syria and Canaan have been discussed on pp. 283–4.

Military organization and administration (EMO; LA 4:128–34)

The army of the Middle Kingdom was organized into province-based regiments, named after the nome (district) or city in which they were recruited or stationed (AEMK 191–2). Each nome recruited its own provincial regiment or company (s3), while also occasionally supplying troops to the national army of the king. Recruitment was supervised by a military scribe (šs n mš^c) – a type of quartermaster or logistics officer – who kept recruitment and service records, administered supplies, and accompanied armies on expeditions (EMO 39). One text describes a representative of the king passing through a province and recruiting “one man in a hundred males” into the royal army (EMO 37). Individual soldiers mentioned in administrative papyri are identified as “X son of Y”, sometimes referring to the region or regiment of recruitment: “from Z”. Soldiers thus generally served in companies with friends and kinsmen, under officers from their hometowns. During periods of collapsing central power and civil war, these provincial regiments were transformed into the quasi-independent private armies of the nomarchs. As discussed on p. 438, in addition to Egyptian troops, the kings recruited large numbers of mercenaries, including Nubians, Libyans, and Canaanites into foreign mercenary regiments (ECI 73), Nubians being especially prominent.

Although most of the documents have vanished, it is clear from surviving fragments that the Egyptians maintained extensive written records of military administration, kept by the military scribes. One census record from el-Lahun describes the household of”the soldier Djehuti's son Hori, of the second company of troops raised up for service in the [northern?] Sector” (VAE 112). Although not strictly military, papyri documents of the dockyard at Thinis record the specific number of men required in a work crew, along with the food to be allocated to the workers and the number of copper axes, adzes, and chisels needed by the crew (VAE 85–8). People who fled from such corvee labor assignments were listed by name, household, and village, and pursued by government officials (VAE 101). Although these records describe work crews, military records kept by the army scribes presumably contained precisely the same type of information about numbers of men, supplies, and weapons needed for the army.

Details on the payment of soldiers are vague, but the broad pattern is clear. Remuneration for military service occurred in at least five different forms: daily food allotment, clothing and equipment, land or livestock endowments, plunder, and “gold of honor” – special gifts from the king for exceptional service in combat. On campaign, soldiers were provided with food, clothing, and other equipment (AEAB 53–4). The ordinary soldier was given ten small loaves of bread a day, along with three jars of beer, two “units” of meat, and three cakes. Company commanders were given proportionally higher allotments of 100 loaves, while expedition commanders were given 200 loaves. (EAE 2:404–5). The extra food allotment of the officers was presumably used for slaves, servants, attendants, retainers, or family members.

Administrative papyri from the late Middle Kingdom provide hints of the sophisticated administrative machinery that operated behind the scenes to maintain the Egyptian army. Administrative control over this bureaucracy was an important and lucrative position run by a type of quartermaster corps of military scribes. A military scribe named Ameny described himself as the “King's favorite who controls the supply depots” (AEA 137). Surviving administrative documents include lists of provisions to be given to different groups in Egyptian society, from the royal family to government officials, priests, craftsmen, and common workers. From the military perspective, these include specific allocations of “provisions for the town militia”, and for the “Medjay men” and “Medjay leader” – presumably Nubian mercenaries – “who have arrived at the palace” in Thebes (AEMK 19–22).

Soldiers and officers were often given at least partially tax-exempt tracts of land in return for service (AIB 127; TS 224; EAE 2:405). Many texts emphasize the importance of the plunder they obtained in battle, including weapons, valuable objects, and slaves (ARE 1:305). In addressing his troops before a campaign, Montuhotep I {2061–2011} promised: “I will give you full title to it [lands to be captured], [and] everything which you desire [in plunder]” (ICN 112). One soldier complained that, because of lack of fighting on a campaign, he was unable to “bring a Nubian back as captive from the [war in the] land of the Nubians” (VAE 95). Rewards were often given to successful soldiers at the end of campaigns. The “Daybooks” or court journals of the kings recorded the distribution of rewards to the military officers after an expedition (ECI 79). Sebek-khu records that, in reward for his exemplary military service, king Senwosret “gave to me a staff of electrum into my hand, a bow, and a dagger wrought with electrum, together with the weapons [I had captured from the enemy]” (AIB 120). The career of the Nubian mercenary Tjehemau, described on pp. 383–4, demonstrates that a recruit could rise through the ranks and obtain great wealth and honor through military service.

A number of technical terms were used for different types of soldiers, but the precise distinctions between these groups is not always clear. The lack of evidence makes it unclear whether these are general descriptions of broad categories, or specific technical military terms. We are dealing with centuries of history, so perhaps it is most likely that the significance of these terms changed through time. New recruits are called the “young men” (ḏ3mw), or perhaps just “recruits” (EMO 40), who need to be trained (ECI 73). When fully trained and experienced in combat they became “young warriors” (ḏ3mw n ^ch3wtyw) (EMO 40). Generally speaking, the term mnf3t (or mnfyt) means simply “soldier”, but Faulkner believes they were distinguished from ordinary soldiers in a number of texts, and should therefore be viewed as a more professional and elite group he calls “shock-troops” (EMO 38). Another type of elite soldier is the kn, a “valiant man” or “hero” (EMO 40); these “heroes” formed a formal elite corps by the early New Kingdom, but the evidence for such a special unit is unclear in the Middle Kingdom, when the term may simply refer to an especially skilled and brave warrior. There is also mention in the texts of frontier and desert “patrols” (pẖrt) and fortress “garrisons” (iw^cyt) (EMO 41), but these may refer to military functions rather than special formal units.

The most elite group in the Egyptian army seems to have been the “followers” (šmsw) or royal retainers. The function of these “followers” was a mixture of personal retainer, courtier, staff officer, and bodyguard, from whose number the king often chose officers for special missions and commanders for military campaigns (EMO 38–9). Promotion through the ranks for outstanding service, culminating in enlistment as a royal retainer, was not uncommon. The military career of Sebek-khu, one of Senwostret III's “followers”, shows him entering royal service as a guardsman of the pharaoh, eventually being promoted to commanding first 60 men and then 100 men (ARE 1:306; EMO 39). In Senwosret III's Syrian campaign Sebek-khu was placed in overall command of the crucial rearguard as the Egyptian army returned to Egypt. Even as an important officer, however, Sebek-khu fought in the ranks with his soldiers, where he personally captured one of the enemy (ARE 1:304). In reward for his faithful military service, he was given a staff of office and ornamental weapons made of electrum, along with booty captured from the enemy (ARE 1:305).

A number of different military ranks or functions are mentioned in Egyptian records and administrative documents. The catch-all rank of the Egyptian army was “commander” or, more generally, “overseer” (imy). A rather vague term, its technical meaning can only be understood in context. In its broadest sense it could be used for overseers of civilian work gangs and agricultural estates (EMO 38). From the more narrow military perspective, however, imy describes many different types of military officer. Supreme military command in Egypt was held by the king, but frequently exercised by the “commander of the army of Upper and Lower Egypt” (imy-r mš^c Ssm^cw mhw), or “great [or supreme] commander of the army” (imy-r mš^c wr), who served as a type of minister of war (EMO 37). Generals in charge of specific expeditions were “commander of the army” (imy-r mš^c) (AIB 107; AEA 120; LA 2:524–5). The title “commander of the army” was used for officers performing many different military functions: among others, by those in charge of frontier and desert patrols, and by the garrison commanders of the Nubian frontier forts (EMO 37). Likewise, the commander of a “company” or “regiment” (s3) was the imy-r s3 – perhaps “company commander” or “captain”; but in a civilian context imy seems to have meant simply a work crew foreman (EMO 41). Other paramilitary functions or offices included town militia, “dog keepers” with watchdogs or tracking dogs who were part of the city defense, and “baton-wielding” police (AEMK 82–4). Frontier defense duties were described by a frontier officer named Sihathor as including “defending his [the king's] boundary, watching his possessions, watchful without laxity” (ARE 1:274).

As in all ages, military life was hard, and Egyptian soldiers included the usual number of grognards – grumblers. An inscription by an expedition leader named Harurre describes some of the difficulties faced during operations in the Sinai and other desert regions. “When I came from Egypt, my face flinched, it was hard for me.… The highlands are hot in summer, and the mountains brand the skin … in this evil summer-season.” None the less, Harurre's “army arrived in full quota, all of it, there was none that fell among them … [because] I led my army very kindly, and was not loud-voiced toward the workmen. I acted [well] before all the army and the recruits, and they rejoiced in me” (ARE 1:322–3). Not only did soldiers face the difficulties of campaigning and fighting in foreign lands, they also had problems on the home front with their family affairs. While away on campaign an officer named Nehesu received word of the mismanagement of his estate at home and wrote an angry letter demanding that his affairs be put in order (VAE 107–8).

The most detailed Egyptian description of the difficulties of military life comes from much later in the Twentieth Dynasty {1200–1081}, but undoubtedly reflects the realities for Egyptian soldiers of earlier periods. The text is a school essay exercise in which the students are told, in a rather satirical way, of the superiority of being a scribe over other possible professions.

Come, let me tell you the woes of the soldier, and how many are his superiors: the general, the troop-commander, the officer who leads, the standard-bearer, the lieutenant, the [military] scribe, the commander of fifty, and the garrison captain. They go in and out in the halls of the palace, ordering [the soldier]: “Get laborers!” He is awakened at any hour. One is after him as [if he were] a donkey. He toils until the Aten [sun] sets in his darkness of night. He is hungry, his belly hurts; he is dead while yet alive. When he receives the grain-ration, having been released from duty, it is not good for grinding [due to quartermasters giving poor-quality grain to the soldiers]. He is called up for [war in] Syria. He may not rest. There are no clothes, no sandals. The weapons of war are assembled at the fortress of Sile [on the north-east corner of the Delta]. His march is uphill through the mountains. He drinks water every third day; it is smelly and tastes of salt. His body is ravaged by illness. The enemy comes, surrounds him with missiles, and life recedes from him. He is ordered: “Quick, forward, valiant soldier! Win for yourself a good name!” He does not know what he is about. His body is weak, his legs fail him. When the victory is won, the captives are handed over to his majesty, to be taken to Egypt. The foreign woman faints on the march; she hangs herself on the soldier's neck. His knapsack drops, another steals it while he is burdened with the woman. His wife and children are in their village; he dies and does not reach it. If he comes out alive, he is worn out from marching. Be he at large, be he detained, the soldier suffers. If he leaps and joins the deserters, all his people [at home] are imprisoned. He dies on the edge of the desert, and there is none to perpetuate his name. He suffers in death as in life [because of lack of proper funerary ritual]. A big sack is brought for him [to be buried in]; he does not know his resting place. Be a scribe, and be spared from soldiering!

(AEL 2:172)

These fragmentary glimpses show us that Egyptian soldiers on campaign had precisely the same problems and complaints as soldiers in all ages.

Arms and armor¹⁰

Soldiers in the Middle Kingdom period can be divided into two types according to their armament: archers (iry-pḏt) and close-combat warriors armed alternatively with spear (ḥnty) or axe (minb). The archers are generally depicted with one bow, but occasionally had two (BH 1 §13). Close-combat troops usually had a mottled animal-skin shield, and were armed with either spears or broad-headed axes (BH 1 §13, §30). Archers generally did not have shields, needing both hands to shoot their bows. During this period we first find both artistic and textual evidence of the Egyptian army being formally divided into tactically separate companies of spearmen and archers. We thus begin to see the tactical specialization of certain companies as either missile or melee troops. The most striking example of this is the famous model soldiers from the tomb of Mesehti at Assyut {Ninth Dynasty, c. 2156–2040}, which are organized into two companies of forty men each. The forty Egyptians are all armed with shield and spear, while the forty Nubians carry bows and bundles of around four arrows (TEM 108–11; C1/2:469). Akhtoy, the nomarch of Assyut, describes a similar organization for his army: “I formed a troop of spearmen and a troop of bowmen, the best ‘Thousand’ of Upper Egypt’ “ (AEAB 28–9). The reference to the “Thousand” may be a technical term for an Egyptian regiment, apparently composed of companies of both spearmen and archers.

Bow (LA 1:182–4)

The bow (pḏt) was the principle missile weapon during the Middle Kingdom. A fragmentary block from Lisht shows that archery was formally practiced at target ranges by the late Old Kingdom or early Middle Kingdom (SGAE 34; BAH 54). Grave goods in the Middle Kingdom tombs from Deir el-Bahri at Thebes include several bows, bowstrings of twisted animal intestines, and dozens of arrows (^cḥ3) with several different types of heads. Two light wooden cylindrical leather-covered quivers were also found, the oldest examples in Egypt (FP 39–46, 52). The New Kingdom tomb of Tutankhamun also has several bows that are similar in style to those of the Middle Kingdom.¹¹ All Middle Kingdom bows are “self” or “simple” bows, made of a single piece of wood; there is no evidence of the use of the more powerful composite bow in Egypt before the New Kingdom.¹² Different types of bows had differing draw weights, and therefore differing range and penetrating power. Like Odysseus and Rama, Senwosret I {1971/1962–1928} was said to have a bow that no one else could draw (TS 30). Bows were made in organized workshops by skilled craftsmen (AW 1:165; EWW 36). Arrows were fletched with three feathers, with arrowheads of flint, bone, or ebony, and, by the later Middle Kingdom, increasingly of bronze (FP 42–3; LA 4:1005–7). Some archery equipment was preserved in the “Tomb of the Warriors” from the time of Montuhotep I {2061–2011}. Arrow-heads discovered in the tomb were of ebony (SSN 13); bronze arrowheads are known from other archaeological sites (BAH pl. 9). Four of the soldiers had archers’ wrist guards (SSN 10, pl. 4; FP 46; LA 2:948), which are also known from artistic representations of archers (FP 47). A bow tip and cord has been preserved, showing how the strings were lashed to the bows (SSN 10, pl. 5; FP 41).

A Canaanite is depicted with a bow and what appears to be a shoulder-slung quiver hanging on his back; this man also carries a curved axe, indicating that at least some archers could be armed with both the bow and a melee weapon (BH 1 §30–1; AW 1:166–7). Senwosret I and Sinuhe are both likewise described as fighting with bow and melee weapon during different phases of combat (TS 30–3). Quivers were still apparently rare among the Egyptians during this period (LA 3:460–1); most Middle Kingdom art depicts the archers without quivers, instead carrying a bow and a packet of extra arrows, either wrapped in a piece of leather or held loose in the hand (BH 1 §47, BH 2 §5,16,17). Some of the archers are shown stacking their arrows on the ground while shooting (BH 1 §14, 2 §5).

The Coffin Texts describe bows being held in precisely this way: “my bow which I stretch with my grasp belongs to me, my arrows are in my grip” (CT 585, 1013). An illustration from Beni Hasan shows an archer with two bows, and a bundle of arrows wrapped in a proto-quiver; the fletching on the arrow is outside the leather wrap (BH 4 §24). There is evidence that quivers were introduced in the Late Middle Kingdom, probably allowing more arrows to be carried by each archer (AW 1:164–7).¹³

The tomb reliefs at Beni Hasan provide a number of illustrations of the use of the bow, some showing substantial detail. Hunting scenes generally depict archers drawing the bow to their chest or the chin rather than the shoulder or ear,¹⁴ though the deeper draw to the ear is occasionally depicted (BAH 54). The bow-staff is sometimes depicted being held in a rather strange grip. The lower two or three fingers grasp the staff, with the upper one or two fingers extended in front of the staff serving as an arrow-guide to keep the arrow straight and stable. The thumb is extended upward and braced against the back of the staff, creating counter pressure against the lower two or three fingers. The bowstring is generally drawn oriental-style by one or two fingers and the thumb, allowing two or three arrows to be held with the other free fingers while the bow is being shot.¹⁵ One hunter lassoes the foot of a bull while the animal is harried by a hunting dog and shot with arrows by another hunter (BH 1 §13; 2 §4); it is uncertain if the lasso was similarly used against enemy soldiers in land or naval warfare. Archers are shown stringing their bow with their knee for leverage, and stacking arrows on the ground while shooting from a fixed standing position (BH 1 §14; BH 2 §5, 15; AW 1:63).

The bow is widely depicted on funerary monuments in southern Egypt during the Middle Kingdom, showing both the social emphasis on prowess in archery, and the widespread use of this weapon during this period (ICN 58; AW 1:162–3). Nubian mercenaries are generally depicted as archers; the Nubian Nenu is shown in his funerary monument holding a bow (OHAE 129). The tomb of the nomarch Setka of Aswan likewise shows five Nubian soldiers shooting bows. They wear only leather kilts and feathers in their hair; one holds at least half a dozen arrows, and another is shown kneeling (OHAE 132).

Spear and javelin (BAH pl. 6, 9, 14; LA 3:937, 5:1124–5)

Depictions of spears (ḥnty) from the murals at Beni Hasan show weapons apparently about 1.25–1.5 meters long (BH 1 §30–1). Some have broad, leaf-shaped heads for thrusting, while others, with narrow needle-like heads, were probably javelins (nsyw). Before the New Kingdom, most spearheads were tanged, slid into a slot in the wood, and bound to the spear shaft (AW 1:156–7, 169). The more stable socketed spearheads had been introduced by the New Kingdom (EWW 36–7; FP 39). The tale of Sinuhe describes a Canaanite warrior coming to battle with an armful of javelins (TS 33). Some spears were weighted at the back end, balancing the weapon and allowing it to be held closer to the back, giving a greater overall thrusting distance (BH 4 §23–4). The model spearmen from the tomb of Mesehi at Asyut all have copper- or bronze-tipped spears (TEM 108–11). On the other hand, the black-colored point on at least one javelin depicted at Beni Hasan may indicate a flinthead (BH 4 §24). The mortuary reliefs of Ankhtifi of Hierakonpolis shows the nomarch spearing fish with a long spear, which, if proportional to his body, would be perhaps 2.5 to 3 meters long (OHAE 128). Lances or pikes of some length were used in battle (BH 2 §5a, c, §15c).

Axe (BAH 34, pl. 10; LA 1:587)

Battleaxes (minb) are common in the artistic depictions of warfare in the Middle Kingdom and several examples have been recovered by archaeologists.¹⁶ During the Middle Kingdom, axes retained essentially the same form as those of the Old Kingdom, the broad “epsilon” axe and the semi-circular “eye” blade, with the broader head becoming nearly universal in the later Middle Kingdom.¹⁷ Axes are mentioned along with daggers and javelins as part of the plunder from an expedition to Canaan (ECI 79).

The martial scenes from the tombs of Beni Hasan depict the axe as the most common melee weapon. Tomb 15 shows Egyptian soldiers armed only with the narrow semi-circular bladed axe (BH 2 §5), while tomb 17 shows a mixture of both types, with a predominance of the semi-circular narrow blade (BH 2 §15). Both of these tombs date to either the First Intermediate Period {2165–2061} or the early Eleventh Dynasty {2134–1998} (EAE 1:175). Tombs 2 and 14, however, which date to the early Twelfth Dynasty {1991–1786}, depict Egyptian soldiers armed only with the broad-bladed “epsilon axe” (BH 1 §14, 16–17). Assuming that these differences do not merely reflect changes in artistic convention, these murals seem to indicate a shift from preference for the semi-circular blade to the broader “epsilon” blade from the early to the late Middle Kingdom. Since the broad-blade axe-head was larger and required more bronze, this shift would be consistent with the greater availability and reduced expense of bronze in the latter Middle Kingdom. While some axemen are shown with no shield, carrying their axes with both hands, most carry shield and axe (BH 1 §47).

During the late Middle Kingdom we find the first evidence of a new type of weapon, the mace-axe (ḥ3), a mace with a curved axe-blade attached on one side and extending somewhat down the haft (BAH 38, 69; PSE 15). This weapon is found in the smiting scene of Amenemhet III {1843–1797}, in which the blade is depicted in a different color than the mace head itself, perhaps indicating it is composed of a different material (TEM 150–1). It continued in use into the New Kingdom {post-1569}.¹⁸

Daggers (BAH 39, pl. 4–5, 13; LA 1:1113–16, 4:109–13)

Flint knives remained in widespread use during the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, as reflected in the numerous depictions of the use of such weapons in the martial murals of Beni Hasan (BH 3 §9–10; FP 49–50). One tomb scene depicts an organized factory producing flint knives (BH 3:34–7, §8–10). Double-edged bronze daggers, with reinforcing ribs down the center of the blade, were widely known in Canaan and Syria during the Middle Bronze Age (AW 1:61, 174–5; MW 1:102–42, 2:387–514). A Canaanite warrior is shown with a sling in one hand and a bronze dagger in the other (BH 1 §47), while each of the four cowering Canaanites in Amenemhet III's smiting scene holds a bronze dagger (TEM 150–1). Some of these bronze weapons made their way into Egypt as imports or plunder (ECI 79), where the dagger was known as b(3)gsw (EG 511, sign T8; EAE 2:407–8). It is uncertain when during the Middle Kingdom the Egyptians began producing their own bronze daggers imitating these Canaanite models. Bronze daggers were none the less rare enough during the Middle Kingdom that few Egyptian warriors are shown with them. One Egyptian soldier, armed with shield and broad axe, seems to have a bronze dagger in his belt (BH 1 §47). Another seems to be dispatching an enemy prisoner with a dagger thrust (BH 2 §5). Despite the occasional appearance of this new bronze dagger, it is likely that the average Egyptian soldier continued to use the much less expensive flint weapons.

Clubs or fighting sticks (EAE 2:410; SGAE 80–7)

Clubs or fighting sticks (mks) – also sometimes called parrying sticks – were widely used as weapons, as indicated on the murals of Beni Hasan, in which a long narrow club with a slightly curved and knotted head is used (BH 1 §16; 2 §5, 15). I will use the English terms clubs and fighting sticks interchangeably here to describe the Egyptian mks. Some fighting sticks have hand-guards on the haft of the weapon. One function of the club was parrying the enemy's blows, be it from club, axe or spear. Some soldiers are depicted as double-armed with either axe or short spear/javelin and fighting-stick (BH 1 §16). On the other hand, the weapons were also clearly used to strike the enemy with the end of the curved head, rather like the perpendicular projecting end of some old-fashioned walking sticks, which was often sharpened at the end of the curve to maximize damage.

Slings (FP 35; BAH 32; LA 5:656)

Slings have been known since Neolithic times. They are quite simple to make, consisting merely of a pouch attached to two long straps; in antiquity they were known to have been made of leather, papyrus, or linen. On the other hand, the sling is quite difficult to master, requiring years of practice for full proficiency. During the Old and Middle Bronze Ages slingers generally cast rocks about the size of a tennis ball. The sling made its first appearance as a significant weapon among the Egyptians in the martial murals from the tombs of Beni Hasan (AW 10; BH 1 §47; AAK 2/1.10; FP 35). It is perhaps not coincidental that the weapon is associated with Canaanite mercenaries serving the Egyptians (BH 1 §47), since the weapon was a favorite of nomads. While several Canaanite mercenaries are shown with slings, only one native Egyptian is using the weapon (BH 2 §15b); the people in a besieged city are shown throwing, not slinging, rocks (BH 1 §14; BH 2 §15). In the siege scene at Beni Hasan slingers are shown standing behind the archers, possibly indicating that their effective range was greater than that of the Egyptian bow (BH 2 §15b). These slings have rather short straps, perhaps 60 cm long.

Shields and armor (LA 2:1113–15, 4:665–6, 5:626–7)

The martial murals of the tombs of Beni Hasan depict most close-combat soldiers carrying a wood and animal-skin shield (ikm) (AW 1:159). This is confirmed by the model soldiers from the tomb of Mesehi (TEM 108–11). The shields are almost rectangular, square at the bottom and gently tapering to a point at the top, presumably allowing troops with locked shields still to see around the curved corners of the top. The shields were made of wood, or a wooden frame covered with animal skins, with a crossbeam handle about third of the way down. The soldiers held the shields in their left hands by the crossbeam, with their hands held upright at the elbow. Leather straps could be attached to the handles allowing shields to be slung on the shoulders when soldiers needed to use both hands (EWW 34; AE 1:14). The shields were generally about a meter tall and 60 cm wide – big enough to cover the soldier from his neck to his knees. The tomb of Nakht contains replicas of the arms of an Egyptian soldier, including half-size shields, spears, and two bows.¹⁹

Larger, full-body-length shields were also known; a company of about thirty Egyptian soldiers with spears and large, body-size shields is shown in the funerary reliefs of Akhtoy {c. 2000} (AAK 2/1.15). However, these seem to have fallen out of fashion, probably due to their excessive weight, and are rarely depicted during most of the Middle Kingdom (AW 1:13; FP 52; BAH 23). Soldiers are universally depicted dressed only in loincloths, and are often barefoot, though mention is made of soldiers wearing sandals (AEAB 53; CT 23; AEL 2:172). There are no surviving examples in Egyptian art or archaeology of helmets (dbn) or body armor (mss) before the New Kingdom (LA 4:665–6, 2:1113–15; FP 55–8). Some soldiers, often archers, are depicted wearing leather straps on their shoulders that cross in the middle of the chests, or are connected to a belt-like harness (BH 2 §5, 17; AW 1:159, 163); these leather bands might have provided some type of armorlike protection. The Egyptian model soldiers from Meshi's tomb wear white loincloths, while the Nubian archers have red loincloths decorated with large green diamonds. It may be that different companies wore different colored loincloths as an early type of uniform.

Training

The Egyptians recognized that new army recruits needed training before being sent to combat. The First Intermediate Period nomarch Kay described his policy: “I recruited [the city's] draftees of young men in order that its levees be numerous … I trained my draftees of young men and went to fight along with [the army of] my city” (ECI 73). Training exercises included the sport of wrestling which was depicted on the walls of several tombs from Beni Hasan.²⁰ Wrestlers are shown on panels which may indicate a sequence of wrestling moves, rather like a modern cartoon strip. These include body grappling, leg and arm holds, and trying to throw the opponent to the ground. These tomb murals depict dozens of different wrestling techniques, indicating that this martial sport was quite sophisticated. On the tomb of Sonebi, one wrestler taunts another: “Please be patient! And you'll see yourself on your face!” to which his opponent replies, “I'll bring you that! Look, I'll make you fall on your face!” With one wrestler down, the victor cries, “Don't boast! Look how we're here! Look at you!” (VAE 79–81). As depicted in the tombs at Beni Hasan, soldiers would train by lifting and swinging bags of sand, presumably increasing the weight of the bags as their strength increased (FP 84).

Stick fighting, both for training in using the club and for combat with axes, is known from depictions in the early New Kingdom, but undoubtedly had its origins in the Middle Kingdom, if not earlier (SGAE 78–89). Target practice for archery training is known from at least the Old Kingdom, as indicated by a fragmentary relief from Lisht (SGAE 34; BAH 54); most of the evidence for archery practice, however, comes from the later New Kingdom (SGAE 35–46; LA 5:1161–9). Combat training was also associated with funeral games, as described in the “Instructions of Amenemhet”.

Make for me mourning, such as was never heard,

For so great a combat [at funeral games] had not yet been seen!

If one fights in the arena, forgetful of the past,

Success will elude him who ignores what he should know.

(AEL 1:136–7)

The social importance of military skills and combat is reflected in the funerary monuments of the period. Many of the nomarchs emphasized their individual martial prowess in their funerary inscriptions (AEAB 25–6, 28, 30). Ameny, son of Montuwoser, boasts: “I am a man of the army, who attacks the [enemy] hero [in battle], but who loves life and hates death” (VAE 96). Djari, commander in the time of Antef II, emphasized that he was “calm at the moment of blows” in battle (AEAB 41). A rare glimpse into the views of the common soldier is found in the stele of Fengu from Naqada, near Thebes. He is shown carrying a bow and a sheaf of arrows, and boasts: “I am the bravest of the brave, the swiftest of the swift. The Overseer of the Priests, Weser sent me on all kinds of missions, and I returned safely” (AEAB 35). Another soldier named Ankhu likewise boasted on his funeral stele: “I am a brave one who beats one braver than himself” (AEAB 103, 104).

Overall, the evidence from the Middle Kingdom demonstrates that the Egyptian army was not a haphazard, ill-trained, and undisciplined rabble. Rather, there were formal policies of recruitment and training in a number of different weapons and combat techniques, with social standards stressing the importance of martial skill.

Combat (LA 6:1429–30)

Historical sources during the Middle Kingdom generally fail to provide details of actual combat. To understand what actually happened when Egyptian armies fought we must turn to literature and art. In the tale of his adventures, Sinuhe gives a poetic tribute to the martial skills of Senwosret I {1971/1962–1928}, in which he alludes to the major phases of Egyptian combat.

He [Senwosret I] is a god without peer …

He is lord of knowledge, wise planner, skilled leader …

He was the smiter of foreign lands,

While his father [Amenemhet I] stayed in the palace [during the co-regency],

He [Senwosret] reported to him on commands carried out.

He is a champion who acts with his arm,

A fighter who has no equal,

When seen engaged in archery,

Or when joining the [hand-to-hand] melee.…

His enemies [do not have the chance] to marshal their troops;

Vengeful, he smashes foreheads;

No one can stand against him [in battle].

Wide-striding he smites the fleeing [enemy],

There is no escape for [the enemy] who turns his back [to flee];

Steadfast in the time of attack,

He makes [the enemy] show his back [in retreat]

But does not show his own back [by fleeing from the enemy]

Stouthearted when he sees the mass [of the enemy battle line] …

He is bold, descending on the Easterners

His joy is to plunder the [barbarian] bowmen.

Grasping his shield he tramples [the enemy] under foot,

He needs no second blow to kill;

None can escape his arrow,

No [other] can draw his bow.

The [barbarian] bowmen flee before him,

As before the power of a great [god]

He fights as he plans [the battle]

Unconcerned about all else.…

Enlarger of the frontiers,

He will conquer the southern [Nubian] lands,

Though he has not [yet] considered the northern [Canaanite] lands,

He was begotten to smite the Canaanites

And to trample the Sand-dwellers.²¹

Here we see all the elements of a typical Egyptian campaign: the divine imprimature given the king by the gods, preliminary orders from the king, military planning, marshaling of troops, archery exchanges followed by bloody melees, the pursuit and execution of the defeated enemy, and the collection of plunder. A victorious campaign was followed by a victory triumph as the army and fleet returned home. After one victory, the Egyptian army and fleet “returned by river and landed in Herakleopolis and the [whole] city rejoiced … women and men together, old men and boys. The son of the lord reached the city and entered his father's court. He brought back those [of the army] who had left home [for battle] and he buried those [who had died in battle] who had no sons [to bury them]” (MKT 23).

Provincial regiments would mobilize in their home nomes, then march or sail to the frontier fortress where the royal army was assembling. For campaigns into Canaan, this tended to be Sile (Tell Abu Sefa) or one of the other north-east frontier fortresses at the beginning of the “Way of Horus” which led across northern Sinai into Canaan. For Nubian wars, the royal assembly was generally at Aswan. Thereafter, when in enemy territory, Egyptian armies often made fortified camps as bases (AF 29; VAE 95–6). Unfortunately we have no illustrations of fortified camps from the Middle Kingdom; although Tomb 17 at Beni Hasan shows a portable shrine, offering table and supplies (or offerings?) (BH 2 §15c), there is no indication of camp fortifications. New Kingdom murals, especially the Kadesh reliefs of Ramses II, show many details of Egyptian fortified camps which may reflect earlier Middle Kingdom practices (EAE 2:219–21; AW 1:236–7).

The Coffin Texts allude occasionally to combat, complementing the order of battle described by Sinuhe. Combat begins with an exchange of missile fire, followed by an advance by melee troops. “The bowmen shot him [the enemy], [then] the spearmen felled him” (CT 1127); this text may imply that it was not necessarily expected that arrows alone would kill the enemy. Troops are described as advancing into oncoming archery: “if you [the enemy] should come against me or if an arrow should come, miss, and continue its course behind me, then Apep will thrust at you [with his spear]” (CT 1145). Daggers are drawn in the ensuing melee; a personified weapon proclaims: “I am the spear which is in the hand which is stabbed at those who are below … I am the knife which pierces the middle of his head” (CT 1141). Defeat is sometimes signaled by weapons breaking in the midst of combat: “my knife is broken, my shield is split” (CT 1021), mourns a defeated soldier. The victors, on the other hand, rejoice with brutal rituals of triumph: “I will cut off your heads, O you who oppose my path; I will lift up your heads on my hands” (CT 660).

Military themes in the “Tale of Sinuhe”²²

The “Tale of Sinuhe” is perhaps the most celebrated ancient Egyptian story, and provides the most detailed description of hand-to-hand combat from ancient Egypt. There is some controversy as to the historicity of the tale, but whether fiction, embellished history, or an authentic autobiography, it is generally agreed that the text has historical verisimilitude.

Sinuhe was a “follower” (šmsw) in the palace of Amenemhet I {1991–1962}, a mixture of courtier, staff officer, retainer, and bodyguard. Sinuhe was on an expedition against Libya with the heir apparent Senwosret I when the pharaoh was assassinated {1962}. Upon overhearing secret word of the coup, Sinuhe's “heart failed”, fearing that he might be executed as a supporter of Senwosret I if the assassins were successful in usurping power. He therefore abandoned his master Senwosret I, making his way to the borders of Egypt and thence into Byblos and Qedem in modern Lebanon, where he spent half a year until he was enlisted in the service of an Amorite bedouin chief, Amunenshi, the “ruler of northern Retjenu [Canaan]” (TS 28–9), who wished to establish good relations with Egypt (TS 31). Sinuhe married Amunenshi's eldest daughter and became a wealthy leader and warlord of the nomadic Amorite tribe (TS 31–2).

As a champion warrior of Amunenshi's tribe, Sinuhe was eventually challenged to single combat by a rival “hero of [another tribe of the] Retjenu … a peerless champion, who had subjugated all the land. He said he would fight with me [Sinuhe], and planned to rob me, to plunder my cattle” (TS 32), apparently in revenge for earlier nomadic raiding by Sinuhe, or perhaps to resolve a longstanding blood-feud. Sinuhe responded to the challenge: “If he has the will to fight, let him speak his wish! Does God not know what he has fated [for victory or defeat in combat]?” (TS 33). What follows is the most detailed description of personal combat we have in Egyptian literature.

At night [before the combat] I strung my bow [pḏt] and tested my arrows, sharpened my [bronze] dagger [b3gsw] and polished my weapons. At dawn, all Retenu [Canaan] had come, having incited its tribes and gathered its neighboring peoples, intent on this combat. He came toward me while I waited, having placed myself near him. Every heart [of the people of my tribe] burned for me; the women jabbered [in anxiety]. All hearts ached for me, thinking, “Is there another champion [as mighty as Sinuhe] who could fight him?”

(AEL 1:228, TS 33)

The duel began at a distance, with an exchange of missiles. While keeping at maximum missile range to minimize the effect, Sinuhe let his opponent exhaust his supply of javelins and arrows, which Sinuhe dodged or knocked aside with his shield.

He raised his battleaxe [minb] and shield, while his armful of javelins [nywy] flew toward me. When I made his [missile] weapons attack me, I let his arrows pass me by without effect, one following the other.

(AEL 228)

The Canaanite warrior is armed with both axe and shield, which he holds in his left hand, leaving his right hand free to throw several javelins. This combination of axe and javelin is depicted several times on the Beni Hasan murals (BH 1 §14, 16).

Then, [when he was out of missiles], he charged me, and I shot him, my arrow sticking in his neck. He screamed and fell on his face; I slew him with his [own] axe. I gave my war cry, standing on his back, while every Easterner [in my tribe] bellowed [in triumph].

(AEL 228)

As any pious Egyptian should, Sinuhe gave thanks to the gods, the true authors of his victory, after which he collected the spoils.

I gave praise to [the Egyptian war god] Mont, while [my dead enemy's] people mourned him. The [Canaanite] ruler Amunenshi [Sinuhe's father-in-law], took me in his arms. Then I carried off [my enemy's] goods; I plundered his cattle. What he had meant to do to me I did to him. I took what was in his tent; I stripped his camp. Thus I became great, wealthy in goods, rich in herds. It was the [war] god [Mont] who acted [to grant me victory in battle].

(AEL 228)

The parallels between this story and the more famous tale of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) are quite remarkable. In both we see the challenge from a mighty enemy champion, whom only the hero dared face. In both, the weapons are prepared and described before battle. The enemy is wounded and felled by a missile and then dispatched with his own weapon. Victory in battle is attributed to God, and leads ultimately to wealth and power. Parallels to single-combat narratives in Homer also abound.²³ Such narratives probably reflect a widespread shared military culture, in which single combat to the glory of the gods and the plundering of a dead enemy's property were standard practices. They also reflect an oral military culture, in which such deeds were remembered and glorified in oral tales and poems, most of which are forever lost. In this sense Homer should be considered to represent the end of this Bronze Age Near Eastern epic tradition, rather than the beginning of Greek literature.

Despite his wealth and power in his adopted homeland, Sinuhe still longed for Egypt. From the Egyptian perspective, non-Egyptians were too culturally different to be fully integrated with Egyptians. Sinuhe, who had sojourned for many years among the Canaanite nomads, described this difference as a state of nature: “no barbarian [from Canaan] can ever ally with a Delta man [from Egypt]; what can establish the papyrus on the mountain?” (TS 33). Eventually a letter arrived from king Senwosret, assuring Sinuhe that he was forgiven and welcome at court, and encouraging him to return to Egypt, which he did (TS 35–9). He was honored by the king and welcomed by his old friends in astonishment: “look, Sinuhe has returned as an Easterner, an offspring of the nomads!” (TS 40–1). A key concern of Sinuhe was that he should receive a proper burial in Egypt (TS 36, 42–3); many Egyptian soldiers on foreign campaigns may have shared a similar anxiety that “their death might occur in a foreign country, where Easterners will lay them to rest” (TS 36) without the proper tomb and funerary rituals to insure a happy afterlife. Making offerings at the funerals of old war companions seems to have been part of a soldier's religious responsibilities. The funeral stele of Ded-Iqu records that “the soldiers serving [with me for] his majesty [king Senwosret I] presented things [at the tomb] to my ka [the departed spirit of the dead]” (AEA 93).

Depictions of combat in martial art (BSMK)

The tombs of the nomarchs at Beni Hasan in middle Egypt provide the best military art of the Middle Kingdom period.²⁴ Of particular interest for military history are four tombs:

· Khety (Tomb 17);²⁵

· Baqet III (Tomb 15);²⁶

· Amenemhet (Tomb 2);²⁷

· Khnumhotep (Tomb 14).²⁸

The precise dating of most of the tombs is uncertain, but it appears that tombs 15 and 17 date from the Eleventh Dynasty in the late First Intermediate Period {c. 2050–2000}, while tombs 2 and 15 date to the early Twelfth Dynasty {c. 2000–1950} (EAE 1:175–7). The scenes in the tombs are somewhat stylized, with similar layouts and themes, but significant differences in detail merit close attention. The tomb murals are divided into between six and nine registers, with wrestling scenes on the upper registers and combat on the lower. Tomb 2 has three registers of wrestling, two of combat and one of boats; Tomb 15 has six of wrestling and three of combat; Tomb 17 five wrestling and three combat. Tombs 2, 15 and 17 all show siege scenes on the left side of the murals, which will be discussed on pp. 447–50.

The murals depict a wide variety of Egyptian soldiers with a number of different weapons and functions. Unfortunately, most of the soldiers are shown simply marching into battle. None the less, assuming that the proportion of troop types reflects the real military situation as opposed to artistic convention, we can get a feel for the rough proportions of troop types in an early Middle Kingdom army, and the nature of Egyptian combat. The Beni Hasan tombs can be supplemented with a war scene from the tomb of Antef of Thebes {c. 2100}.

Antef {c. 2100}²⁹

Antef's tomb depicts an assault on a Canaanite city, which will be discussed in the section on siegecraft on pp. 447–50. Here, the composition of the Egyptian army will be summarized. The top two panels show the assault on the Canaanite city (Figure 11, p. 447), the middle panel shows combat between Egyptians and Canaanites, while the last two panels show Egyptians carrying off prisoners after their victory. All of the soldiers are wearing the typical Egyptian white kilt; some have straps crossing their chests and some have headbands; none, however, has any body armor or helmet. The middle panel, which I interpret to depict open combat before the siege, shows the Egyptian army in victory. Three Canaanites, bound with a single long rope, are marched to the rear by an Egyptian with an axe. The center of the panel depicts the combat. Two Canaanites lie on the ground with their pointed rectangular shields and a javelin scattered around them. A wounded Canaanite is being dispatched by an Egyptian with an axe. An Egyptian shoots his bow behind two duels: in both scenes the Egyptians hold the Canaanites by their hair as they strike them with an axe and what appears to be a dagger. To the rear, five Canaanites flee. One, wounded by three arrows, is helped by a comrade. Three others, in striped kilts with short thrusting spears or javelins and the standard Canaanite shield, withdraw in good order. There are a total of twenty-three Egyptian soldiers depicted in the assault (the first two panels), of whom five are climbing the siege tower armed with axes. Of the remaining eighteen, six (33 percent) are archers while twelve are melee troops. Of the melee troops, half have shields and half do not. Two of the soldiers have spears, and two have fighting sticks; the rest (66 percent), are armed with axes, which are evenly divided between the broad-axe and the semi-circular axe blade. Two also have bronze daggers. Three of the archers seem to have a type of quiver-box for their arrows, which appears to be freestanding, and set upright on the ground allowing the archer to draw arrows to shoot. The prisoner panel shows three archers and five axemen; the middle panel three axes, one archer and one man with a melee weapon which is damaged; from the posture and thrust of the Egyptians it appears to be a dagger. Thus, the overall proportion is about one-third archers and two-thirds axemen.

Figure 11 Siege and battle scene, Tomb of Antef (Thebes, Egypt) {c. 2100} Source: Drawing by Michael Lyon.

Baqet III, Tomb 15 {late Eleventh Dynasty, c. 2050–2000} (BH 2 §5)

Tomb 15, from the late Eleventh Dynasty, shows the greatest number of soldiers, a total of 81, whose armament can be determined.³⁰ Of these, ten (12 percent) are involved with logistical support, bringing bundles of spears, bows, or arrows to the troops at the front lines; however, one of these is also armed with a bow, while two have fighting sticks, indicating that these troops were only temporarily involved with logistical support. This leaves 74 soldiers with distinguishable weapons. Of these, twenty-six are archers (35 percent), thirty-one are armed with fighting sticks (42 percent), nine are armed with spears (12 percent), six with axes (8 percent), and two with daggers (3 percent).

These broad weapon categories can be further broken down into smaller groups. Of the thirty-one men armed with fighting-sticks, eight (25 percent) have shields. Fourteen of the shieldless men are shown wielding their fighting sticks with one hand, while nine use two hands, probably reflecting different phases or techniques of stick fighting. Of the nine spearmen, two have a spear and a club, two have a spear and a shield, and five have pikes wielded with two hands. Three of the six axemen have shields, while three carry the axe alone. Neither man with a dagger has a shield or any other weapon. Only twelve of the 74 soldiers have shields (15 percent), of whom seven have clubs, two have spears, one has an axe, and two have either an axe or a fighting stick. Shields thus seem to be scattered among the troops in rough proportion to the overall number of weapons of each type.

Fifteen different melee duels are depicted in Tomb 15 (BH 2 §5). A third of the duels are between men armed only with clubs, mostly swung with two hands. In three instances a soldier has grabbed the fighting stick of his opponent by the haft. One of the combatants has a shield in only three of the fifteen melees; in no melee do both combatants have shields. This overall proportion of shielded melee duels (20 percent) is roughly the same as the total proportion of shielded men depicted on the murals (15 percent), which would seem to imply that shield-bearing warriors were not specifically organized to fight a greater share of melee combat. Indeed, the overall impression of the mural is that, while the archers are organized into special units, the melee troops seem to have a random mix of all types of melee weapons.

Three duels show a soldier holding his opponent by the hair while attempting to strike him. Another three depict combat between people with different types of weapons. The first shows a man with shield and fighting stick against an opponent with only an axe. In the second, a man with a shield and a stick faces a man with a spear wielded with two hands. Finally, a man with a shield and an axe (or a club?) faces a man armed only with a fighting stick. Two battle scenes show fighting between more than one combatant. A man with a pike has stabbed one enemy who is collapsing onto the ground, while a second enemy with a fighting stick has grasped the middle of the spear and prepares to strike the spearman. A four-way combat is also depicted: a kneeling man is grasped by the hair by an enemy who is about to strike him with a club; a man with a shield and a stick rushes to the kneeling man's rescue, but is held at bay by a man with a pike held with both hands who stands behind his companion, with the pike extending beyond him and defending him (BH 2 §5c).

Two of the duels are between an unarmed man and an opponent armed with a dagger. In the first, the attacker holds his victim by the arm or hair as he thrusts a dagger into his stomach. The second scene is somewhat ambiguous. An Egyptian appears to have a bronze dagger which he is thrusting into the face of an unarmed Canaanite, who is grabbing the Egyptian by the forearm; it is unclear if this is a fight, or if the Egyptian is attempting to help a wounded Canaanite. At any rate, the fact that both dagger combats show unarmed opponents might indicate that the daggers were generally used more for mopping-up operations than for actual fighting. In the final two melees a man with a club is beating a fallen enemy, using a double-handed blow in both cases, implying that, in the hands of a properly trained Egyptian warrior, the war-club was at the very least enough to disable an enemy or render him unconscious.

Khety, Tomb 17 {late Eleventh Dynasty, c. 2050–2000} (BH 2 §15; AW 1:158–9)

The second late Eleventh Dynasty tomb belonged to the nomarch Khety. Here, of a total of 67 Egyptians with discernable weapons, there are eighteen archers and one slinger (28 percent), forty-one men with shields (60 percent), and eight men with spears and no shield (12 percent), six of whom have fighting sticks as well. There are finally four men in the rear carrying bundles of extra weapons to the fighters. The forty-one men with shields carry one of three melee weapons: club, axe, or javelin. Twenty-three have clubs (57 percent), and thirteen have axes (33 percent), most of which seem to be the smaller, semi-circular “eye”-style axe-head typical of the Old Kingdom, although two or three of the axe-heads may be the broad-axe more characteristic of the later Middle Kingdom. Only four have javelins (10 percent). Additionally there are eight other melee soldiers without shields, all armed with spears, six of whom have fighting sticks as well. This means that of the total of forty-nine melee soldiers – shielded and unshielded – roughly half have clubs, a quarter axes and a quarter spears.

Amenemhet, Tomb 2 {early Twelfth Dynasty, c. 2000–1950} (BH 1 §14–16)

The early Twelfth Dynasty Tomb 2 shows a total of thirty-three armed Egyptian soldiers (BH 1 §16). Of these, eleven are archers (33 percent), seven are armed with axe and shield (21 percent), with another four (15 percent) armed with axe and javelin or short spear, and one with axe and fighting-stick. One of these axemen has two javelins, indicating these weapons were be thrown, as was the case with Sinuhe's opponent described above (TS 33). On the other hand, two men are shown fencing with these javelins, indicating they could be used in the melee as well. This gives a total of twelve men armed with axes (35 percent); all of these axes are the larger broad-headed style. All men with shields also have axes, although one-third of the men with axes do not have a shield. The final six men are armed with one of two types of spear, but no shield. Of these, two are armed with javelins and fighting-sticks, one with a javelin alone, one with a pike wielded with two hands, and two with unclear weapons which are either javelins or longer pikes. Thus, in summary, about one-third of the army is comprised of archers, one-third axemen (of whom two-thirds have shields and one-third javelins and axes), and one-third javelins or lances without shields. Only three actual melee duels are depicted in Tomb 2. In the first a man wields a pike with two hands against an enemy with a shield and an axe. The second duel is between two men, each armed with javelin and fighting-stick. In the third a man with two fighting-sticks is beating an enemy who has fallen to the ground; the fallen man is supported by an archer in the rear shooting arrows at his attacker.

Thus, although the overall format of the battle scene in each tomb is similar and stylized, the specific armament shown is quite distinct. Assuming these differences are due to the artists accurately reflecting changes in real armament, we can speculate that the army in Tomb 15 (BH 2 §5) represents a late First Intermediate Period provincial army composed largely of poorly armed irregular militia. The limited resources available to a provincial nomarch perhaps explains the prevalence of fighting-sticks (42 percent) and the limited number of bronze weapons (23 percent). It is also likely that not all of the spearheads are, in fact, made of bronze; some were likely made of flint, and therefore the number of men armed with bronze weapons in Tomb 15 was probably less than 20 percent. The limited number of bronze weapons in Tomb 15 may also reflect the ongoing transition from Old to Middle Bronze Age armies, with bronze still relatively rare and expensive.

Table 17.1 summarizes the differences in troop and weapon types found in the Beni Hasan tombs over the course of 100 to 150 years {c. 2050–1950}.

A number of interesting characteristics appear from this chart. First, the percentage of archers remains relatively constant in all the murals, at about one-third of each army. Fighting sticks outnumber axes and spears two-to-one in Tomb 15; in Tomb 17 the proportion has become essentially even, with about a third of the army being archers, a third having clubs and a third having axes or spears. By the early Twelfth Dynasty Tomb 2, however, the fighting-stick has almost disappeared, to be replaced by an even proportion of axes and spears. The proportion of axes has nearly quadrupled from Tomb 15 to Tomb 2, and, furthermore, all the axes of Tomb 2 are the of broad-head type, which probably required almost twice as much bronze to make. During the same period the number of spearmen has almost tripled. The differences between the armies depicted in the tombs probably reflect the transition from a proto-Bronze Age army of the First Intermediate Period to a true Bronze Age army of the Middle Kingdom. On the other hand, the earlier tomb of Antef has more bronze weapons that the subsequent Intermediate Period tombs, a percentage that is surpassed by the period of Tomb 2. It may thus be that the late Old Kingdom, with its control of Sinai and international trade, had greater access to bronze weapons. The First Intermediate Period saw a temporary decline in the availability of bronze weapons, which was restored only by the beginning of the Middle Kingdom.

Table 17.1 Types of troops and weapons found at Beni Hasan tombs {c. 2050–1950}
Troop/weapon type	Antef	Baquet (Tomb 15)	Khety (Tomb 17)	Amenemhet (Tomb 2)
archers	33%	35%	26%	32%
fighting-sticks ( clubs)	11%	43%	37%	–
axes	44%	9%	19%	34%
spears	11%	13%	18%	34%
shields	38%	15%	60%	24%
% bronze weapons	55%	22%	37%	68%

Mercenaries in the Beni Hasan murals

Though most of the soldiers depicted at Beni Hasan are Egyptians, there are a number of mercenaries involved in combat. Eleven Canaanite mercenaries are depicted in the mural of Tomb 15. Of these, three have slings, one has an axe and a shield, and two are unclear. Several three- to six-man groups of either Canaanite or Libyan mercenaries are depicted wearing bright, multi-color striped loincloths and armed with bow, axe, sling, and bronze dagger (BH 1 §16, 47; BH 2 §5b-c). The three Canaanite mercenaries in Tomb 14 are double-armed: one with both sling and bow, another with a bow and an axe, and a third with a sling and a dagger – none has a shield (BH 1 §47). Another similar company of Canaanites includes warriors with a sling and a bow, an axe and a bow, and a bronze dagger and a bow (BH 2 §5c). This implies that at least some Canaanites served as both as missile and close-combat troops, again paralleling the weapons and tactics attributed to Sinuhe's challenger (TS 33). Three of the Canaanites, again in brightly-colored kilts, are shown armed with broad, curved war-clubs or axes, along with short-spears or bronze axes (BH 1 §16 = AW 1:169). The structure of the curved weapon is unclear here, but in the Beni Hasan tomb of Khnumhotep III, a Canaanite has a similar weapon which clearly curves into a broad axe-head which is structurally different from the haft (AW 1:166–7). Some of the archers appear from their red kilts or loin-cloths – as opposed to the usual Egyptian white kilt – and their darker skin color to be Nubians (BH 2 §15a-b; AW 1:158–9). In Tomb 17 there are two squads of Canaanite mercenaries, four of them slingers and five armed with axes (BH 2 § 15b). Of the five axemen, one has either a club or a sling along with his axe. The other four have rectangular shields with triangular indentations on the top and bottom and four corners projecting outwards. The shape appears to be based on an animal skin with the four projecting corners being the four shoulders of the legs, vaguely reminiscent of Tuareg ayar shields.³¹

There are a couple of scenes showing activities in the rear of the battle line. All the murals show columns of soldiers marching forward into battle from the rear. Logistical support of troops on the front line is reflected in several of the scenes, with soldiers in the rear carrying large animal skin packets filled with extra javelins, bows, and arrows to soldiers in the front lines (BH 1 §47, 2 §5b, 15c, 16; BAH 45, 52). Corpses are shown being dragged into piles or lines, and perhaps plundered (BH 1 §47, 2 §5c. 15b); some wounded men appear to be receiving the coup de grace (BH 2 §5c, 15c). A portable tabernacle with an altar table has been set up in the rear, where offerings have been presented to the gods, and a cow is being sacrificed before battle (BH 2 §15c), emphasizing the ever-present need of the aid of the gods.

Tomb of the Warriors (SNN)

The “Tomb of the Warriors” provides us with some rather gruesome detailed evidence on the nature of Middle Bronze Age warfare. The tomb contained sixty corpses, all killed in battle in the time of Montuhotep I {2061–2011}, and apparently buried simultaneously as casualties from the same battle (SSN 7). After nearly four thousand years the corpses were still sufficiently preserved to allow forensic analysis of their wounds and causes of death. The Egyptian soldiers, who, like soldiers in most ages, were probably larger and stronger than the average Egyptian, would be considered short by modern standards; the average height of the warriors in the tomb was about 1.6 meters (SSN 7). Some of the soldiers were obviously veterans, with “old, long-healed wounds” (SSN 9).

According to Winlock, ten soldiers showed signs of having been wounded by ebony-tipped reed arrows – the actual number was undoubted higher due to flesh wounds which were no longer recognizable, and the probability that many arrows and arrowheads had either been removed or had fallen from the corpses (SSN 1113, pl. 7). One of the arrows entered the chest and transfixed the lung and heart (SSN 12, pl. 7D), indicating that Egyptian archery was powerful enough to penetrate deeply and kill. The line of trajectory of several of the arrow wounds seems to have been from above, indicating that the soldiers were probably killed while besieging or assaulting a fortress, with the arrows shot from the walls (SSN 13–14). Another eighteen wounds, many of them fatal, were interpreted by Winlock as being caused by stones thrown or slung from a fortress (SSN 14–15, pl. 8–13). Fifteen of the sixty corpses were dispatched by a coup de grace to the head from maces, creating traumatic shattering of the skull and facial bones (SSN 16–17, pl. 9–10). Six bodies showed evidence of having been exposed after combat, and pecked at by carrion birds, indicating there was some time between their death and the recovery of the bodies (SSN 18, pl. 12).

Winlock describes his interpretation of the battle in which these soldiers were killed:

We have some sixty soldiers of the army of King Neb-hepet-Re’ [Montuhotep I], all of whom were either killed or grievously wounded by arrows and stones hurled from the battlements of a fortress they were attacking or were dispatched by the garrison during a sortie when their companions had fled out of range. Then they were torn by vultures, during the lull before the attackers once more dared come back to the fray. A second assault saw the fall of the citadel and the defeat of its defenders, when so great was the triumph of Neb-hepet-Re’ that he had all the bodies of his slain soldiers gathered up from the battlefield, including those half rotted by their exposure since the first assault.… All were borne to Thebes for burial.… None had died in hand-to-hand fights from slashes by axes, probably none were the victims of stabs by spears and daggers, nor had any of them arms broken by the blows of maces and clubs. These soldiers were killed and wounded with missiles, and such as were grievously hurt and were helpless when the garrison made its sortie had been clubbed to death.

(SSN 23)

In all, the investigation of these corpses demonstrates that Egyptian warfare could be brutal, and the overall impression of combat in the martial art of the Middle Kingdom, discussed above, is confirmed by Winlock's forensic analysis.

Fortifications³²

Archaeologically, the building of fortifications is probably the most certain sign of militarism. If so, then the Middle Kingdom in Egypt was certainly a militaristic age. A complex system of fortifications (Egyptian mnw) was an integral part of the overall Middle Kingdom military strategy. There were four zones of Egyptian fortification activity, corresponding to its four strategic zones: the Nile valley, the north-eastern Canaanite frontier, the oases of the Western or Libyan Desert, and the Nubian frontier.

The Nile valley

There are frequent references to fortified cities within the Nile valley, but, unfortunately, millennia of human occupation and flooding by the Nile have erased most of the archaeological evidence. It is generally assumed that most of the large cities and great temple complexes were fortified with massive walls. The best surviving remains of city fortifications comes from El Kab (Nekheb), near Edfu, whose rectangular mud-brick city walls measure nearly 500 × 600 meters, and are twelve meters thick and eleven meters high (Figure 9, p. 360).³³ The gate complex is lined with stone for additional strength. In many ways the sacred enclosure of the temple complex at Abydos (Kom el-Sultan), built by Senwosret I, is a fortification, with gates and projecting towers (AEA 3–5; EAE 1:7–12; HEA 3:42–4).

The north-eastern frontier

Despite the obvious military importance of the north-eastern frontier, and numerous textual references to fortifications there, there is little surviving archaeological evidence for Middle Kingdom fortresses from that region. None the less, textual evidence gives us a basic picture of the nature and function of that fortified zone. This strategic frontier stretched from the Mediterranean to the Gulf of Suez, roughly 120 kilometers across. However, the Egyptians made use of the impassible lakes and marshes to limit the area requiring active defense to roughly half that distance. The policy of fortifying the eastern frontier seems to have begun in the reign of Akhtoy III of the Tenth Dynasty of Herakleopolis during the late First Intermediate Period, who claims to have driven nomads from the eastern fringes of the Delta (TS 223–4). This policy, however, was rigorously maintained throughout the Middle Kingdom, and broke down only in the last years of the Middle Kingdom and the early Second Intermediate Period.

The Egyptians developed a defense in depth, composed of both frontier fortresses and fortified cities in the delta. Amenemhet I {1991–1962} is known as the builder of one of the most important frontier fortresses of the age, the “Walls of the Ruler”, possibly at Wadi Tumilat near the Great Bitter Lake (LA 6:1124–6). Its precise archaeological identification is uncertain; it could have been a single fortress, a series of forts designed to control access into Egypt, or even, in part, a barrier wall. Another fortress was built at the beginning of the “Ways of Horus”, the military road leading east through the Sinai to Canaan (LA 3:62–4). Again its exact location is uncertain, but it was probably associated with Sile (Tell Abu Sefa) (ECI 80; LA 5:946–7). West of the frontier, the major towns of the north-eastern delta were also fortified, providing a second line of defense against any raiders or armies who might evade the frontier fortresses.

The Western Desert

During the Middle Kingdom the Western Desert was the least militarily active and threatening, and consequently the least fortified. Most of the oases that were occupied by the Egyptians, however, probably had some type of fortification, like those surviving at the Dakhla oasis (AEA 26). At Wadi Natrun (Qaret el-Dahr), to the west of the delta, there is a 47 × 59-meter fortress dating to the time of Amenemhet I {1991–1962} (HEA 3:205–6). A small dry-stone fortress in Wadi el-Hudi was built to protect the amethyst miners in the Eastern Desert as well (HEA 3:207–8).

The Nubian frontier³⁴

Archaeologically, the most spectacular surviving Egyptian fortifications are the four-thousand-year-old “Second Cataract Forts” in central Sudan. Indeed, they are the finest examples of Bronze Age fortifications anywhere in the world. Tragically they have been submerged and destroyed by the creation of the Aswan Dam and Lake Nasser in the late 1960s. Before their destruction, however, several fortresses received careful archaeological and photographic documentation.

Although fortification of the southern frontier of Egypt had begun in Pre-Dynastic times, the “golden age” of Egyptian fortress building in Nubia was the Twelfth Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom. The fortifications constructed on the Kushite frontier were massive, requiring the expenditure of immense resources in their creation and maintenance, and representing both the need to sustain Egyptian imperialism in Nubia through military occupation and the significant potential military threat from the southern kingdom of Kush. The Cataract Forts were not created in a haphazard manner, but represent a carefully planned defensive system with four major purposes: 1, to maintain military control over Nubia; 2, to control trade from Kush into Egyptian Nubia; 3, to prevent raids or major military invasions from Kush; and 4, to provide bases for possible military intervention south into Kush. To achieve these goals the Egyptians created four fortress zones in Nubia (see Map 4, p. 309).³⁵

The first zone was at the First Cataract, the traditional boundary between Egypt and Nubia, which had been fortified since Pre-Dynastic times. There were two major surviving fortresses there:

· Elephantine (Abu), 53 × 53 m (AEA 80–1);

· Senmut (on the island of Biga).

In addition to these fortresses, Senwosret I seems to have built a wall as a barrier to further control traffic and prevent raids; it was six kilometers long, two meters thick and six meters high (AEF 71).

The second fortification zone was rather more than 100 kilometers south of Aswan, where Montuhotep I {2061–2011} and, more extensively, Amenemhet I {1991–1962} built fortresses at the mouth of Wadi Allaqi to control access to the gold and copper mining regions to the east. These included:

· Ikkur (Baki), 82 × 110 m (AEA 115);

· Kubban (also called Baki), 70 × 125 m (AEA 132);

· Aniba (Miam), 87 × 138 m (AEA 18).

The third fortification zone was at the Second Cataract, some 300 kilometers south of Aswan at the frontier established by Senwosret I {1962–1928}. Forts here included:

· Faras (“Repelling the Medjay”), 75 × 85 m (AEA 90);

· Serra East (“Embracing the Two Lands”), ? × 80 m (AEA 219);

· Buhen (Buhen), city wall 215 × 460 m; fortress 150 × 170 m (AEA 39–40);

· Khor (Buhen), 250 × 600 m (AEA 125);

· Mirgissa (Iken), 100 × 175 m (AEA 152);

· Dabenarti, 60 × 230 m (AEA 64).

A century later Senwosret's great-grandson and namesake Senwosret III {1878–1843} created the forth fortress cluster about 100 kilometers further south at Semna, about halfway between the Second and Third Cataracts. These fortresses, representing the southernmost extension of Egyptian control in Nubia during the Middle Kingdom, were:

· Askut (“Removing the Setiu”), 77 × 87 m (AEA 22);

· Shalfak (“Curbing the Countries”), 47 × 95 m (AEA 221);

· Uronarti (“Repelling the Inw”), triangular, 57 × 114 × 126 m (AEA 251);

· Semna (“Khakaure [Senwosret III] is powerful”), 135 × 135 m (AEA 213);

· Kumma (“Warding off the Bows”), 70 × 117 m (AEA 132).

In creating these fortification systems the Egyptians made extensive use of the defensive potential of geography. The first and third fortification zones were respectively at the First and Second Cataracts, where any Nile River traffic must necessarily stop. Thus, in a sense, the cataracts had already naturally fortified the river, to which the Egyptians simply added land fortifications. The fourth zone, at the Semna gorge, was the narrowest point in the Nile valley between the Second and Third Cataracts. The narrow Semna gorge was ideal for defensive purposes.

Although the building of the Nubian fortifications was associated with the imperialist policies of specific pharaohs, once built the forts took on a life of their own, continuing long after the original policies of the kings were abandoned or transformed by changing circumstances. Many of these forts remained in use for centuries, and were repaired or expanded a number of times by subsequent kings (e.g. ARE 1:293). Some of the forts, originally established for purely military reasons, developed into large cities and became centers of cultural and religious life in the area. Trade flourished at the forts, with a regular flow of merchandise between Egypt and Kush. The fortresses of Nubia remained in Egyptian hands into the early Thirteenth Dynasty, when the kings of Kush conquered Nubia as far north as Aswan; thereafter the fortresses remained in Kushite hands during most of the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries (see pp. 459–61). They were eventually reconquered by the Egyptians during the New Kingdom.

Characteristics of Egyptian forts: the example of Buhen (FB; BI; AEA 39–40)

Before the flooding of Lake Nasser, the best-preserved Egyptian fortress was Buhen (Figure 10, p. 444). The excavation and magisterial publication by Emery, Smith and Millard provides vital archaeological data on the characteristics of Middle Kingdom Egyptian fortifications. Built by Senwosret I {1971–1928} to consolídate his Nubian conquests, the fortress was occupied for centuries and refurbished many times. The Buhen fortress complex was built at the Second Cataract, adding man-made strength to this natural barrier in the Nile. Buhen was actually a pair – two fortresses on opposite banks of the Nile – to insure that no ship stopping at the Second Cataract could evade Egyptian notice. Modern archaeologists call these two forts Buhen and Khor, but they were both called Buhen by the ancient Egyptians, indicating that the Egyptians conceived these two fortresses as a single fortress system.

Figure 10 Middle Kingdom Egyptian fortifications at Buhen, Sudan {20–18C}. Until its inundation by Lake Nasser, the Egyptian fortress of Buhen was the best-preserved and most complex fortress from the Middle Bronze Age Near East. The fortress included a dry moat, glacis, concentric walls, projecting towers, postern gates, arrow slits, crenellation, and a massively fortified gate complex. Source: Drawing by Walter B. Emery, from Walter B. Emery, H. S. Smith and A. Millard, The Fortress at Buhen: The Archaeological Report (Excavations at Buhen 1) (London: The Egypt Exploration Society, 1979). Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

Buhen, like the vast majority of Egyptian fortifications, was constructed of mud-brick, although some other Egyptian forts have stone foundations to give the fortress greater stability. Like many other Nubian fortresses, Buhen had one wall against the Nile, allowing direct access to supplies and reinforcements from the river, again emphasizing the importance of the Nile as the logistical artery of the Egyptian army. Although Buhen was essentially rectangular in shape, many other fortresses were irregular, maximizing the defensive qualities of the terrain. The military engineers at Buhen clearly understood the principle of concentric fortification. The inner fortress measured 150 × 170 m, with walls five meters thick and up to eleven meters high, reinforced with wooden beams and reed mats to increase stability. The walls of other Egyptian fortifications measured as much as twelve meters thick. The defensibility of the walls was increased by regularly-placed square towers and huge projecting defensive bastions at the corners. Two small gates gave access the Nile, with a huge fortified monumental land-gate to the west.

This inner wall was surrounded by a second outer wall reinforced with thirty-two semi-circular towers. These towers had a double-row of loopholes for archers, angled in such a way as to allow a wide arc of fire. This entire complex was surrounded by a deep dry moat with mud-brick-lined glacis and counterscarp, creating a triple barrier against any assault. The monumental land-gate had a long narrow passageway, with tall towers projecting over the dry moat. A drawbridge on rollers within the gate could be withdrawn, blocking access to the inner gate, which was closed with heavy wooden doors. It is quite remarkable that by at least the twentieth century BC the Egyptians had already developed most of the basic concepts and principles of fortification that would remain foundational to fortification engineering until the development of gunpowder weapons nearly 3500 years later.

Garrisons and the Semna military dispatches (SD)

Within the walls of Egyptian fortifications there were a number of different types of buildings for the administration and maintenance of the fortresses. These included barracks, houses, and offices for the officers, armories, production areas, temples or shrines, granaries and supply houses, bakeries, and sometimes gardens.

The frontier fortresses were manned by permanent garrisons which sent out regular border patrols. There is also evidence of watchtowers to supplement border patrol observations. When fleeing from the turmoil of a palace coup, Sinuhe faced the problem of evading the border patrols. When he “reached the Walls of the Ruler [Amenemhet I], which were made to repel the [raids of] the Syrians and to crush the Sand-farers. I crouched in a bush for fear of being seen by the guard on duty upon the wall” (AEL 1:224). When Sinuhe returned to Egypt years later, he was stopped “at the Ways of Horus”, one of the forts on Egypt's north-eastern border, probably at Sile (Tell Abu Sefa). There the garrison commander, undoubtedly astonished by a bearded man in bedouin clothing claiming to be an Egyptian who had been summoned by the king, sent a message to the royal palace asking what to do (TS 39, 42). These incidents suggest that, while individuals or small groups could evade the garrisons and border patrols, large raiding parties or armies would find it difficult to elude the strict Egyptian border garrisons and patrols.

Eight remarkable military dispatches survive from the Nubian frontier fortresses during the reign of Amenemhet III {1843–1797}, giving us a glimpse of garrison organization and administration in the Middle Kingdom. Although written by officers in the Nubian frontier garrisons to their commanders, copies were kept at Thebes, indicating “the pervasiveness of the State administration” (VAE 93). Most of the letters end with the stylized assurance, “All the affairs of the King's Domain – Life, Health and Peace [upon him] – are safe and sound.” The focus of the surviving letters is on the movement of Nubians and the nomadic Medjay, and the monitoring of trading activities. Protection from Nubian raiders was obviously a high priority, and the frontier troops kept careful watch on population movements between Nubia and Egypt, with regular patrols describing sightings of people or even recent tracks in the desert. The fortresses also served as centers of trade, with the frontier garrison providing security for merchants (AEMK 191).

Nothing seems to be too trivial for recording in the dispatch archives; several letters mention the movements of only half a dozen Nubians (SD §1, 3, 5). Five Medjay bedouins, complaining that “the desert is dying of hunger”, came to Elephantine begging to be allowed to “serve the Great House [of Egypt]” as mercenaries (SD §5), presumably to keep from starving. Some Nubians were turned away and not permitted to stay near the Egyptian fortresses (SD §6). Other letters discuss the arrival and departure of Nubian merchants by boat and donkey to trade at one of the forts (SD §1, 7). Medjay bedouins were hired as mercenary troops to patrol the desert against the incursions of other Nubians: “two [Egyptian] guardsmen and seventy [or seven?] Medjay-people went following a track [in the desert]”. They captured three Medjay men and three women, who were brought to the fortress and questioned. “Then I [the fortress commander] questioned these Medjay-people, saying, ‘Whence have you come?’ Then they said, ‘We have come from the Well of Yebheyet’ “ (SD §3).

The most complete dispatch describes such a tracking expedition which lasted three days:

Another letter brought to him by the liegeman Ameny who is in [the fortress] Khesef-Medjaiu [“Repeller of the Medjay” = Faras], being [a message] given by fortress to fortress. It is a communication to the Lord, may he live, prosper, be healthy, to the effect that the soldier Nekhen, Senu's son, Heru's son Reniqer and the soldier from Tjebu, Rensi's son, Senwosret's son Senwosret, came to report to this humble servant in year 3 [of Amenemhet III, = 1841], 4th month of spring, day 2, at the time of breakfast, on a mission from the officer of the town regiment, Khusobek's son Montuhotep's son Khusobek … who is the deputy [sergeant?] to the officer of the ruler's company in the garrison of Meha [a district in Nubia] saying: “The patrol that went out to patrol the desert edge [near] the fortress of Khesef-Medjau in year 3, 3rd month of spring, last day, has returned [after three days on patrol in the desert] to report to me, saying, ‘We have found the track of thirty-two men and three donkeys [ … ]’ This humble servant has sent [the report from fortress] to fortress.”

(VAE 94–5 = SD, §4)

This remarkable document, which was preserved in a Theban archive where a copy had been forwarded from Nubia, shows that the Egyptian army maintained detailed archives with the names of each individual soldier and every patrol carefully recorded. It is likely that there were once thousands of such papyri texts in archives documenting all aspects of Egyptian military affairs, but today only the merest fragments survive.

Siegecraft³⁶

The extensive program of fortification undertaken by the Egyptians in the Middle Kingdom demonstrates that they viewed such defenses as necessary and worth the expenditure of resources. The Coffin Texts describe this view of the value of fortifications, promising that “there will not go up to you those who would destroy your gate or wall” (CT 21). None the less, it is clear that, given enough time and the proper techniques, Bronze Age fortresses could be captured by assaulting armies. As depicted in the earlier Old Kingdom siege murals from the tombs of Kaemheset (AW 1:147, EWW 38; NEA 30–2) and Inty (AW 1:146, FP 141–2; NEA 30–2, Figure 2a), there were two basic methods of capturing a fortified city by assault during the Egyptian Bronze Age: breaching, and scaling. Neither ramp building nor undermining walls are attested as siege techniques in the Egyptian sources for this period.

Middle Kingdom evidence confirms the continued use of both scaling and breaching techniques, but with two major technical innovations: siege towers, and rams. Unfortunately, this Middle Kingdom evidence, though evocative, is quite limited. We have only two artistic depictions of Egyptian siegecraft in the Middle Kingdom: the siege mural of Antef (Thebes tomb 386) (Figure 11, p. 447; EWW 38; NEA 38–9, Figure 3) {c. 2100}; and the siege murals at the tombs of Beni Hasan (BH) {c. 2050–1950}.

Scaling

In a scene reminiscent of the Old Kingdom murals in the tombs of Kaemheset and Inty, the tomb of Antef has a relief depicting the siege of a Canaanite city being assaulted with what appears to be a free-standing siege tower (GJ §2; EWW 38). This device differs from earlier Old Kingdom depictions of siege ladders in two ways. First, the Old Kingdom ladders are shown leaning against the wall for support, while this siege tower is shown upright. Second, the Old Kingdom ladders have only a single set of rungs. The Antef siege tower shows three upright beams with two sets of rungs, allowing two pairs of Egyptian soldiers to ascend the tower simultaneously. There are two possible explanations for this. It may be that this is simply a double ladder with a shared middle beam. On the other hand, the artist might be trying to depict, without the benefit of artistic perspective techniques, a freestanding square tower. Another feature argues in favor of the square tower interpretation. In the depiction the tower doesn't actually touch the wall, which it would have to do if it were a ladder. Instead, it appears that a beam or plank extends from the top of the tower to the top of the wall, which the attackers would use to make the assault from the tower to the wall. A soldier on the top of the tower, armed with shield and axe, seems to be engaged in a melee with a Canaanite as the Egyptian struggles to get from the siege tower to the wall. Four soldiers with their axes thrust into their belts are ascending the tower, while a fifth man on the ground with axe and shield seems to be preparing to follow them up the tower.

This tower thus seems to be an attempt to create a more stable platform from which to assault the wall, as well as more numerous climbing rungs to allow more soldiers to ascend simultaneously. On the ground level to the left of the tower there is a partially damaged circle which may represent a wheel for the tower, similar to wheels depicted on Old Kingdom siege ladders. The city the Egyptians are assaulting has no glacis, meaning the tower can be pushed fairly close to the wall. The glacis depicted in later fortresses on the Beni Hasan murals may have been made in part to prevent siege towers from being pushed up against the fortifications. Dry moats characteristic of some Middle Kingdom Egyptian fortifications would have had a similar effect.

The Canaanite defenders of the fortress, with beards, headbands, and multicolored kilts, are fighting the Egyptians with arrows and stones. Egyptian missile counter-fire seems to be effective; two Canaanites have been wounded by arrows – one in the arm and one in the forehead – while another four have tumbled off the walls. Five Canaanites are shown with their heads barely peeking over the ramparts, while another four are standing up to shoot arrows or throw stones. One man has the pointed-rectangle style of Canaanite shield, discussed on p. 438. Beneath the siege scene we see the aftermath of the siege, with bound men being dragged off as prisoners, women and children wailing and following behind; infants are carried on their shoulders. Egyptian soldiers armed with axes (five) and bows (three) guard, and sometimes abuse, the prisoners; some prisoners are pulled by their hair.

Breaching

Breaching the fortress walls by simply digging through the mud bricks was obviously a potentially very costly operation, for the assaulting army was exposed to withering missile fire from the defenders who remained protected atop the city ramparts. The Coffin Texts describe the fear of soldiers facing such a missile barrage: “the ramparts are high, and I die in their limit” (CT 1139). The nature of the injuries suffered by the soldiers in the Tomb of the Warriors (SNN), many of whom were wounded or killed by missiles or stones throne from above, reflects the brutal fate of many of those assaulting a fortified and strongly defended city.

Thus, rather than using the Old Kingdom method of directly digging through the mud-brick walls of an enemy fortress with mattocks, axes, and crowbars, while facing deadly enemy fire from above, Middle Kingdom siege engineers developed two new technologies to protect soldiers while attempting to breach fortress walls: the battering-ram, and the penthouse or protective shed. Both of these are depicted on the martial murals from the tombs at Beni Hasan.³⁷

All of the murals depict essentially the same siege scene; it is not certain if this is because the depictions reflect the standard technique of the period, or if the artists were simply repeating the same conventional scene over and over again. The castle being assaulted has either one or two gates, tall walls, and machicolation. It also has glacis – sloping earthworks at the foundation of the walls – a characteristic of fortifications which appear in both Egyptian and Canaanite fortresses from this period (ALB 202–5). The exact purpose of the Bronze Age glacis is uncertain. In one sense the glacis simply serves to stabilize the walls, allowing them to be built taller. A second possible function of the glacis would be to make breaching the walls more difficult; attackers attempting to undermine the base of the wall would have to dig through the glacis before reaching the wall itself. Finally, the sloping glacis would prevent siege towers from being placed directly against the wall, thereby limiting their effectiveness. As noted, the siege tower depicted in Antef's tomb has been placed against a wall with no glacis. It is possible, then, that glacis were made in part as a direct response to the development of siege towers. Likewise, a glacis would force attackers to place ladders further from the base of the wall and at a shallower angle; the ladders would thus need to be longer, and would be less stable. It is likely that all of these considerations were elements in the development of the glacis.

The defenders of the forts in the Beni Hasan murals appear to be Egyptians, with shields and other equipment similar to that of the Egyptian attackers; the sieges represented here were thus probably part of the wars of the late First Intermediate Period. The defenders are armed with bows, javelins, and stones (though no slings), which they hurl with great fervor at the attackers. Some of the soldiers are protected by shields from the missiles of the attackers; others hang out over the parapets to get a better aim. The attackers likewise return missile fire by both archers and slingers; arrows are shown sticking in the walls and in some of the defenders. A large part of the siege was thus a missile duel, with the defenders having the advantage of the protection of their walls and the improved view, range and penetrating power brought by shooting at an enemy from above. On the other hand the attackers might have an advantage in that they could mass more troops shooting more missiles against a single section of the wall which could support only a limited number of defenders.

The most interesting feature shared in all of the Beni Hasan siege murals is the depiction of the protected ram used by the Egyptians. The Egyptians have built a protective shelter to defend their men from enemy missiles. The exact nature of the shelter is uncertain; it clearly has a wooden frame, with crossbeams to support the structure. The roof is curved to deflect missiles. There are two uncertainties, however. First, is the structure a wooden frame covered by animal skins, or are there wooden planks on the roof and between the main structural beams? Given that the defenders’ missiles are arrows, javelins, and stones, it seems likely that cured leather would provide sufficient protection for the attackers, which would also make the structure light enough that it could be easily carried into position. Second, the artist has depicted the structure in a cutaway view, allowing us to see inside, so it is not clear how much protection there really was on the sides of the shelter. Clearly there must be some type of opening to allow the Egyptians to use their ram. I suggest that the structure was completely covered on the top, had an opening at head and shoulder level which allowed the soldiers to see out and thrust their ram. The shelter was further protected by side panels on three sides, but was open to the rear allowing the soldiers to come in and out.

There are two or three soldiers in the protective structures, carrying long poles used as rams. Assuming the soldiers averaged about 1.6 meters tall (see p. 439; SSN 7), and that the artist depicted the rams in accurate proportion to the soldiers (which is not at all certain), the poles would be about 4–5 meters long. Given the height of many of the walls, however, I suspect many were actually longer than this. It is not clear from the artwork, but the poles may have had some type of metal head. It appears to me that the poles were thrust out between the gap between the roof and the protective side panel, and rested on the front crossbeam of the defensive structure, creating a point of leverage. The soldiers used their weight to hold the back of the pole down, lifting the front of the ram upward at something less than forty-five degrees. The pole was then rammed into the brick wall and used as a lever in an attempt to crush or dislodge the mud-bricks. When enough bricks had been dislodged, the upper courses of the brickwork of the fortress would collapse, creating a breach, through which an assault could be undertaken. In all of the Beni Hasan murals the ram is being used against the upper portions of the wall rather than the base. This may in part be because the glacis prevented the ram from doing much damage to the base of the wall. It is also likely that, if enough of the upper portions of the wall collapsed, the resulting slumping of the bricks would create enough of a gap and slope for an assault to be made.

Blockades

We have no accounts during the Middle Kingdom of blockades or sieges lasting for months in an effort to starve out the besieged. Why might this be? It may simply be that such sieges did indeed occur but the surviving fragmentary records do not preserve accounts of them. It is only in the early New Kingdom that we have our first account of a multi-year siege. The autobiography of a ship's captain serving in the wars of king Ahmose tells us that, during the wars of expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, “Sharuhen [a major Hyksos city in southern Canaan, either Tell el-Far'ah or Tell Ajjul] was besieged for three years” {c. 1550} (ANET 233b), implying that long-term sieges were feasible by this period. However, we do not know if such blockades were undertaken earlier. It may be that the mud-brick walls of most fortifications of the period could be breached with a few weeks of consistent effort, making long sieges unnecessary. On the other hand, the fortifications of Sharuhen in Canaan were also of mud-brick; if brick walls were easy to breach, thereby removing the need for lengthy sieges, why did it take three years for the Egyptians to capture Sharuhen?

It is also possible that, during the Middle Kingdom, the Egyptians lacked the logistical capacity to feed and support large armies in the field for more than a few months. If a city could not be taken within the framework of the maximum logistically feasible period, the siege would have to be abandoned; thus long sieges did not occur because the attackers starved before the defenders. But it is most likely that lengthy sieges are not mentioned in the records because, outside of civil wars in Egypt, the Egyptians generally did not face enemies with massive fortresses. The only exception to this was Canaan, where the Bronze Age city-states were highly fortified. But, as discussed on pages 406–7, the Egyptians did not, in fact, intervene extensively in Canaan during this period. The fact that they faced large, well-fortified Canaanite cities in that region may have been part of the reason. Unfortunately, the lack of data precludes a definitive answer.

Naval warfare³⁸

The overall technology and pattern of naval warfare in the Middle Kingdom remained broadly similar to those of the Old Kingdom, though there were a number of technical advances. Landstrom details these in his marvelously illustrated book (SP 75–97). A number of model boats (TEM 93), artistic depictions, and archaeological remains (such as the Dashur boat, EBS 28) give us a good understanding of Egyptian nautical technology. Several different types of Middle Kingdom boats with sails, oars, and large rudders, are depicted on the tomb reliefs at Beni Hasan.³⁹ Some Middle Kingdom ships are depicted with shields hanging from the sides of the deckhouse (SP 78, 81, 85, 89). This may in part simply be a convenient, out-of-the-way place to store the shields, but may also be an attempt to strengthen the thin papyrus matting of the deck house against javelins or arrows in combat situations (SP 81). The Coffin Texts and other sources provide detailed nautical terminology describing many different parts of the celestial ships of the gods.⁴⁰ Although these celestial ships are close counterparts of earthly ships, they are described in mythic terms where each part of the ship represents a different god or mythic creature; the ship itself becomes a microcosm of the Egyptian universe.⁴¹

There were four major zones of Egyptian naval activity during the Middle Kingdom: the Egyptian Nile, the Nubian Nile (from the First to the Third Cataracts), the Red Sea and the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Fundamentally, during the two Intermediate Periods Egyptian naval combat focused on the struggle between rival Egyptian princes on the Nile river. Thereafter, although the Nile remained crucial for transporting troops and materials during the Middle Kingdom, we naturally see little river warfare on the Egyptian Nile, since Egypt was a unified state firmly controlling the Nile to the First Cataract and beyond. Instead, during the Middle Kingdom, naval warfare shifts to the Nubian Nile, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

We have several accounts of river campaigns during the First Intermediate Period, which have been discussed in Chapter Fifteen. Henenu the steward describes part of his responsibilities as “sailing up the river at the head of his troops” (AEAB 52) indicating the importance of the river for transporting Egyptian armies. King Merikare {c. 2070–2050?} led a river campaign in Middle Egypt in person, sailing his fleet to Shashotpe (Shutb), near Asyut {c. 2055?}, where a standoff with the upstart princes of Thebes ensued (ARE 1:185–6 = MKT 23, see p. 377). Ankhtifi of Hierakonpolis’ campaign against Thebes {c. 2030} included strong support from his river fleet, which sailed with impunity up and down the Nile, either carrying troops or supporting them as they marched on the banks of the river (AF 37; OHAE 131, p. 371–3). The Nubian mercenary Tjehemau mentions campaigning by river and fighting on Lake Faiyum during Montuhotep's wars of reunification {c. 2040}. He describes …

Going forth … against the Lake of Sobek [Faiyum] … I overthrew the [enemy on the] sandbank … [and] the river, to lead the sand-dwellers [nomad mercenaries] and [the Nubian mercenaries of] Wawat … to put to flight the man [king] of the North. Then it [the northern kingdom of Herakleopolis] mustered its war-fleet and it traversed all its nomes of the entire [northern] land to defend itself.

(ITM 11–20)

Tjehemau also describes an amphibious assault against troops marshaled on the riverbank:

I went down to the district of Thebes. I found [the enemy] standing on the riverbank. They planned fighting. The opposition fell [before our attack], fleeing because of me … in the district of Thebes.

(ITM 11–20)

These accounts emphasize the integral part river fleets played in Egyptian warfare. It would be safe to say that on the Nile river an army seldom campaigned without the assistance of a fleet for combat, transport, and logistical support.

During the campaigns against Nubia in the Middle Kingdom, Egyptian fleets played precisely the same role south of the First Cataract that they had played on the Egyptian Nile during the First Intermediate Period. Several accounts, discussed in Chapter 16 Chapter Sixteen, describe the role of the river fleet in the Nubian wars during the Middle Kingdom. Crucial to the success of the Egyptian conquest of Nubia was the use of the canal bypassing the First Cataract at Aswan, which had been built in the days of Weni in the late Sixth Dynasty {c. 2310} (AEL 1:21–2). This canal was dredged and widened in the eighth year of Senwosret III {1870} to facilitate his conquest of Nubia by allowing the free passage of his war fleet, troop transports, and supply ships into Nubia (ARE 1:291–2). Thereafter, a royal river fleet was apparently maintained on the Nubian Nile (RA3 213).

We have no accounts of actual sea – as opposed to river – combat during the Middle Kingdom. We do know, on the other hand, that Egyptian ocean fleets were operating widely and frequently in the eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea during this period (EAE 2:358–67). In the Mediterranean Sea, Egyptian fleets were known to have operated as far as Crete (EAE 1:315), Cyprus (ECI 79), and Syria. The Syrian city of Byblos served as the major Egyptian naval base for resupply, fleet repair, and trade, and was crucial in the success of Egyptian maritime enterprises in the Mediterranean. (EAE 1:219–21, see p. 410). This gives a likely total range for naval operations in the Mediterranean of 700 kilometers from Egypt, and perhaps as far as 1000 kilometers, depending on how one interprets the significance of the presence of Egyptian artifacts in the Aegean Sea. The total range of naval operation in the Red Sea is even further, up to 2500 kilometers from Egypt, again depending on where, precisely, Punt was located (EAE 3:85–6). Most of these naval operations were essentially peaceful trading expeditions, but many, if not all of them, included a military component, if only a contingent of soldier for the protection of the fleet. Amenemhet II's annus mirabilis {c. 1910}, discussed on pp. 399–402, included the dispatch and return of a fleet of ten ships on a raid to the Lebanese coast (ECI 78–9). At the same time another fleet plundered two cities in Cyprus or on the Syrian coast and returned with 1,554 prisoners (ECI 79). The size of the fleet is not known but it must have been fairly substantial to have been able to carry enough soldiers and sailors to sack two cities and have room to return with over 1500 prisoners. The Egyptians in the Middle Kingdom clearly had the naval capacity to send several thousand men anywhere on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean.

The First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom preserve a number of sources which give us our first glimpses of actual naval combat on the Nile. The most impressive of these is the naval combat relief from the tomb of Antef (Intef) (Theban tomb 386), nomarch of Thebes, and early ancestor of the kings of the Eleventh Dynasty (Figure 12, p. 454; GJ §1; NEA 39; EBS 35). These murals depict three boats, all propelled by oars with large rudders at the back; no sails are visible. If the soldiers are drawn in proportion to the boat, the river boats are rather small, perhaps eight meters long; other vessels are known to have been thirty meters long with 60 rowers (EBS 36). These boats are propelled, respectively, by ten, fourteen or eighteen rowers, with half that number depicted on one side of each boat. In two of the ships they sit, rowing in unison; in the other they stand while rowing. Two of the ships have four warriors, one has at least five, and perhaps a sixth in a damaged section of the mural. Two of the ships have only archers, while the third has one archer and three men armed with shields and broad-axes. Some of the warriors stand on the prow of the ship, shooting their bows; two axemen on the prow are preparing to assault another ship, or perhaps to jump ashore.

Figure 12 Naval combat scene, Tomb of Antef (Thebes, Egypt) {c. 2100} Source: Drawing by Michael Lyon (partly restored)

The details of the Antef naval mural thus shows that Middle Kingdom naval combat included both archery and shipboard melees, which is confirmed by textual accounts of naval combat from this period. The most detailed of these comes from the autobiography of Tefibi, nomarch of Asyut, against his rivals at Thebes {c. 2080} and is the first eye-witness narrative of a naval battle on the Nile.

I [crossed over from the west bank] and reached the east side [of the Nile], sailing upstream [south]. There came another jackal [Antef's general] with another army from his confederacy [from Thebes]. I went out against him …. He hastened to battle to the [thirteenth] nome [of Asyut] …. I ceased not to fight to the end, making use of the south wind as well as the north wind, of the east wind as well as the west wind [for maneuvering my fleet on the river] …. He [the enemy general] fell in the water [after being wounded or killed]; his ships [fled and] ran aground …. Fire was set [to their ships]. I drove out the rebellion by the plan of [the jackal god] Wepwawet, [the head-god of Asyut] … When a man did well, I promoted [him] to the head of my soldiers.

(ARE 1:182–3)

This narrative depicts ships fighting a battle on the river and using the winds for maneuvering to gain tactical advantage. When the enemy general was killed in battle – by missile or melee is unclear – he fell in the river, demoralizing his troops. As the battle was won, the fleeing enemy beached their boats, abandoning them to be burned by the victors. This general pattern of naval warfare is supplemented by a passage from the Coffin Texts, describing demonic opposition to the passage of the celestial ship of the gods into the heavens in terms of naval warfare, with tactics of shattering enemy oars to prevent maneuver, and setting fire to enemy ships: “the oars of those who are hostile are broken … I am he who opposed the destroyer who came setting fire to your bark.… They shall not attack your bark while I am in it” (CT 1099).

Thus, by the Middle Kingdom, river naval combat had become quite sophisticated, including the use of a combination of sails and oars to maneuver the ships, attempts to use the wind to gain tactical advantage over the enemy, combat with ramming to shatter oars and fire to disable enemy ships, and archery and boarding melee against enemy crews. In this, Middle Kingdom naval warfare broadly parallels the characteristics of naval combat in the New Kingdom as depicted on the famous martial reliefs on the southern wall of the temple of Ramses III at Medinat Habu.⁴²