Battle of Megiddo
The Battle of Megiddo , which took place on April 26th . ( 21. Schemu I ) 1457 BC In the 23rd year of reign of King Thutmose III. took place northwest of Megiddo , is probably the most detailed armed conflict from ancient Egypt. The most important source about the campaign are the so-called annals, Thutmose III. in hieroglyphic writing on the temple walls of the Annal Hall in the Karnak Temple . This annal text is a revised short form of a diary that scribes kept during the campaign and that was kept in the temple archives after their return.
Under the rule of Hatshepsut , important areas in the Middle East probably fell away from Egypt and the supremacy in this area was lost. When a coalition of Syrian princes came together in the Middle East under the leadership of the Prince of Kadesh, the Egyptian King Thutmose III prepared. in the first months of his sole government for a campaign, perhaps as a pre- emptive strike for fear of an impending conquest of Egypt.
The opponents to the Prince of Kadesh gathered at the fortress of Megiddo . Thutmose III. decided on a risky route through the Carmel Mountains to take advantage of the surprise effect. Completely surprised, the enemy withdrew into the fortress after the Egyptian attack. Apparently the Egyptians made the mistake of plundering too early, so that the princes could save themselves in the fortress and they could only be forced to surrender after several months of siege.
The Battle of Megiddo marked the beginning of an almost annual campaign to the Middle East. In addition to the 1st, there were only real field battles in the 8th and 10th campaigns, the others were probably smaller ventures to collect tributes and to create the basis for further presence. From this developed an Egyptian imperialism in the Middle East.
Starting position
In the second interim period, the so-called Hyksos (“rulers of foreign countries”), a group of immigrants from the Near East , ruled over a large area of Egypt . Finally, a Theban dynasty ( corresponding to the 17th dynasty ) succeeded in driving the Hyksos out of Egypt: After Seqenenre and Kamose had already undertaken several campaigns against the Hyksos, it was Ahmose who captured the Auaris and was able to drive the Hyksos out for good. With this he founded the New Kingdom . Ahmose then moved on and besieged Sharuhe , a southern Palestinian city about 25 km south of Gaza, which was believed to be the capital in the core area of the Hyksos. The successors Amenophis I and Thutmose I also continued the Egyptian efforts to the Middle East. Nicholas Reeves describes Thutmose I as the architect of the Egyptian empire abroad . Under Thutmose II , Egypt's supremacy in the Middle East was still present. In the time of Hatshepsut there are few mentions of Asia. Presumably important areas of Egypt fell away during her reign, and Egypt's area of influence extended, if at all, to the southern part of Palestine.
In the Middle East, a coalition of Syrian princes came together under the leadership of the Prince of Kadesh . Overall, Thutmose III. the (probably more symbolic) number of 330 princes and kings. According to Wolfgang Helck, it was Thutmosis III's first campaign. an "offensive defense". In his opinion, Hatshepsut's passive attitude led to the Mitanni King's plans becoming ever more stretched. The deployment of the troops around the Prince of Kadesh could therefore only have had the aim of conquering Egypt. Thomas Schneider , however, doubts that it was an impending reconquest of Egypt by the great power Mitanni , as a link to the rule of the Hyksos. Francis Breyer at least notes that after the foreign rule of the Hyksos, the need for security vis-à-vis the Near East in Egypt was evidently very great . While in the following campaigns Thutmose III. the opponent was Mitanni alone, the opponent of the Battle of Megiddo was still called Kadesch: From around 1550 there were increasing contacts from Qadeš to the north in the Transjordan area, ie for a short time after the collapse of the old power structure and the rise of Mitanni Qadeš set about filling the vacuum himself . Christian Langer considers the justification of an attack as a preventive strike to be problematic. This could also have served as a cover-up for a war of aggression .
The fact that only two months passed between the fighting and the death of Hatshepsut, Helck interpreted as an indication that Hatshepsut of Thutmose III. was murdered . The threat to Egypt was the triggering moment for the change of government, since Thutmose III. in contrast to Hatshepsut, he could only counter the threat offensively. Donald B. Redford calculated that this short time was not enough to prepare such an enterprise and that it was already planned under Hatshepsut.
Lore
annals
The most important source about the campaign are the so-called annals, Thutmose III. in hieroglyphic writing on the temple walls of the Annal Hall in the Karnak Temple , in the area around the granite actuary, in the eastern Annal Hall, on the north wall. This annal text is a revised short form of a diary that scribes kept during the campaign and was kept in the temple archives after their return. Egyptian sources tend to exaggerate for ideological reasons in order to show their own superiority over foreigners, the annals of Thutmose III. but are largely viewed as a reliable source of events. In his 40th year of reign, Thutmose gave the order to compile the events chronologically, according to the year of reign.
Nevertheless, Martin Noth points out that the diary excerpts with exact dates and locations only form an external framework. It is important to separate those narratives in which processes are interpreted or even created that did not happen that way, but which must be described in this way in order to establish the inner "truthfulness" of the process . So there is a discrepancy between the historical facts and the reality developed from the Egyptian worldview. In addition to content-related, stylistic criteria are used to differentiate. In general, infinitive constructions give possible references to the origin from annals ("Annalenstil").
The sources for Thutmose's campaigns are in any case more extensive than for any comparable other in Egyptian history. JB Bury remarked that we had more information about these Thutmose III campaigns. from the 15th century BC Know as about those of Stilicho or Flavius Aëtius in the 4th to 5th centuries.
Place name lists
A secondary tradition of the events are the place name lists (also toponym lists), Thutmose III. at the pylons 6 and 7 in the Karnak Temple. For a long time they were considered an important source for the Near East demographics and the history of the Egyptian conquests. These lists, which supposedly enumerate "the lands of Ober-Retjenu, which His Majesty included in Megiddo," according to Helck, make the progress of the advance recognizable.
The interpretation of these toponym lists is problematic, however. It is unclear how the scribes were informed of the place names. You probably knew this before the campaign. The lists are not arranged chronologically according to the campaign. The most unlikely interpretation for Redford is that of a list of defeated cities. A hierarchical structure of the cities according to importance cannot be determined either. There are different interpretations of the so-called "Syllabic Script".
From the fact that the locations are actually in a row in some of the sequences, Redford concludes that different itineraries served as models. Helck, on the other hand, assumed that the names were taken from the war diaries.
Gebel-Barkal stele
Another important source of events is a stele, the Thutmose III. in the distant Napata ( Gebel Barkal ). This also provides important details of the campaigns. However, it has a completely different relation to the events than the annals. They are part of a summary of the achievements that the king achieved in the 25 years of his sole rule and are reported in honor of Amun in the Holy Mountain (i.e. in the Gebel Barkal).
Armant stele
The rose granite stele was found rebuilt in a Coptic house in Armant . It contains a summary of the highlights of Thutmose's reign. It is a eulogy of the king, a literary genre that addresses the king's praise. An outside narrator summarized the events from a certain distance. Even so, he knew the annals and referred to them.
Other sources
Other mentions about the campaign are:
- An inscription from the 23rd year of Thutmose III. on a pillar of the Temple of Buhen
- A decree in the festival hall in the Karnak Temple
- On the northern half of the 6th pylon in the Karnak Temple, Thutmose III mentions. the sacrifices he made to the god Amun after the campaign
- In the barque sanctuary in the Karnak temple, reports are made of the construction and transport of a barque shrine of Amun for the campaign
Campaign to Megiddo
Departure of the Egyptian army
The actual departure of the Egyptian army from Memphis is not mentioned in the annals, but on the Armant stele. There he dates to the second half of the 4th Peret of the 22nd year of government.
The annals begin with the passage of the border fortress Sile on March 31st greg. ( 25th Peret IV ) 1457 BC In his 22nd year of reign. Nine days later, on April 9th, Greg. you came to the city of Gaza . This day was also the day of the feast of the accession to the throne of Thutmose III. and thus the first day of the 23rd year of government. Thutmose III. noted on arrival in Gaza: Victory in Gaza to overthrow the wretched enemy and expand the borders of Egypt .
Council of War in Jehem
On April 21, 1457 BC Thutmose III reached the city of Jehem (Chirbet Jimma). A camp was set up here and the situation was investigated. In the following consultation he was informed that the king of Kadesh had assembled the provinces loyal to Egypt as far as Naharina (region of the Upper Euphrates ), Chor ( Palestine - Syria ) and Qedu / Qedi (northern Syria, between Carchemish and the sea) and in Megiddo wait .
Thutmose called his advisers together and discussed the further tactical procedure. The Carmel Mountains rise between Jehem and Megiddo. There were three options for the approach route:
- The eastern road via Djefti, a safe route, but where Megiddo was reached from the north over a distance that was clearly visible.
- Over the place Taanach from the east side, where however some of the enemy troops were already camped.
- On the direct route via Aruna through a narrow pass ( location ). A dangerous variant, as the army had to go single file through the narrow gorge.
Contrary to the advice of his advisors, Thutmose chose the dangerous route across the mountains in order to claim the surprise effect and to get behind enemy lines. If the enemies had positioned themselves on the ridge of the pass, the Egyptians would have been easy prey. Even if they were able to cross the pass, there was a great risk of immediate fighting while a large part of the army was still in the pass gorge. For understandable reasons, the consultants advised against this route:
"Why should a move out [on] this path that is pretty narrow. One [reports] that the enemies are standing at the [exit] and that [they] are quite numerous. Doesn't horse have to march behind [horse], as do [the warriors] and the entourage? Should our vanguard come into battle while our [rear guard] is still here in Aruna and cannot enter the battle? There are two (other) ways ... "
Thutmose III. gave the advisors the choice of following him:
“As surely as I [live] and love myself Re and my father Amun is gracious to me and my nose is young in life and power! My Majesty will advance this way from Aruna! Whoever of you wants may march on the paths that you have suggested! Whoever of you wishes may come with me in the entourage of My Majesty. For they will (otherwise) say to the enemy, the abhorrence of Re: “Is his Majesty advancing in another way? He's beginning to be afraid of us! "They will say."
So the consultants agreed to the proposal:
“May your father, Amun, Lord of the Thrones of Both Countries, First of Karnak (Ip.t sw.t), assist [your will]! See, we will follow Your Majesty to every place [Your Majesty] will go! A servant is (always) behind [his] master! "
March through the Carmel Mountains and preparation for battle
The force was able to cross the gorge without any problems. When the Egyptians emerged from the pass at noon, no enemy was in sight . It remains to be seen whether the Prince of Kadesh actually received no news of the advance of the Egyptians. According to the war diary, the troops stopped at the advisor's admonition to bring the rear guard up.
The enemy had positioned their main force near Taanach and deployed smaller units to secure the road leading from Djefti to the Megiddo plain. This was easily visible from the fortress. However, the coalition ignored the path through the mountains. Thutmose III. recognized on April 24th (19th Pachon) 1457 BC When leaving the ravine that he had come between the north and south flanks of his opponents. At the end of the morning the entire force had left the gorge and reached Qen (Qn) at the 7th hour of the day (around 12:00 p.m. ). Now the whole army was ordered to prepare for the coming battle: Prepare yourselves for the battle with the wretched enemy .
Thutmose III. let camp at the foot of the mountains. The next day the final preparations for the battle were made: to provide food for the great and for the followers , the army was given the order for the following night Stand firm! Steadfast! Watchful! Watchful! . At the same time, parts of the army were moved south and north of Megiddo during the night in order to cut off the fortress from the enemy army.
Course of the battle
On the 21st Schemu I (April 26th) the writer reports: Day of the New Moon Festival . Appearance of the king in the early morning. Command to move out. This entry also includes one of the rare mentions of the new light festival date. The southern wing of Thutmose III's army. stood south of the Ken Brook while the north wing was to the northwest of Megiddo. Thutmose describes in the annals how he led the attack on the front lines:
“The whole army was given orders to set up [the line of battle]. His Majesty set out on his chariot of electron, adorned with the brilliance of his weapons like Horus, strong arm, lord of deed like Month of Thebes (W3s.t). His father Amun strengthened his arms. The southern wing of His Majesty's army extended to the mountains south [of the valley of the (stream)] Qi-n3 (Ken), the northern wing to the northwest of Megiddo, while His Majesty was in the center. "
Completely surprised by the sudden attack, Thutmose III's opponents withdrew. back to the fortress. According to the report, the fleeing Syrians were pulled up over the walls on ropes and clothes knotted together because the gates closed too early. However, Helck doubts the historicity of this statement. Apparently the valuables left behind led to looting. It is interesting that this failure is officially admitted on the Egyptian side:
“If only His Majesty's army hadn't bothered to plunder the things of these enemies! [They] would have [captured] Megiddo right now! But the wretched enemy of Kadesh and the wretched enemy of this city were (also) drawn up with difficulty in order to let them get into their city. His Majesty's fear had run [into her limbs], her arms [were slack], when his forehead serpent gained power over her. Then their horses and their chariots were captured of gold and silver, made into battle booty. Her warriors lay stretched out like fish in the wad of the net, but His Majesty's victorious army counted their possessions. "
Siege of the fortress of Megiddo
Since the princes were able to hide behind the fortress, the city had to be besieged. A huge wall of 315 m × 230 m and a height of about 10 m and thickness of 6 m made the city impregnable. Only starvation promised success. A siege ring was built around the fortress. Thutmose III. followed and controlled the events in the fortress Men-Cheper-Re , east of Megiddo, which was built for the siege: The fortress was surrounded with earthwork and fresh wooden beams made from all kinds of fruit trees. No city dweller managed to escape Megiddo in the following months.
The exact circumstances of the siege are not reported in the annals. The inscription refers to a leather scroll that was kept in the archives of the Karnak Temple. A part of the army surely constantly guarded the entrance to the fortress, while other parts subjugated the surrounding area.
The annals do not provide any information about the duration of the siege. The only mention of the Gebel-Barkal stele: My Majesty besieged it for seven months. Many Egyptologists followed this statement. Hans Goedicke , on the other hand, does not consider it likely that the Egyptians fought in the Middle East in December and Thutmose III. could not return to Egypt for a long time. In addition, the king celebrated his victory in Karnak just five months after the siege began, which is why he proposes a reading of the passage as "one month and seven days".
Surrender of the princes of the Near East
When the food in the fortress gradually ran out, the princes of the Near East capitulated. Thutmose III. demanded tribute payments and loyalty to Egypt, but the princes were allowed to keep their positions.
“The princes of this foreign country, however, came on their bellies to kiss the earth in front of the divine power of his majesty and to implore breath for their noses - because his strength was great and because the divine power of Amun [against all] foreigners was so great. […] But all the princes who had brought (ie subjected) the power of God to His Majesty (came) with their tributes of silver, gold, lapis lazuli, malachite and carried grain, wine, cattle and flocks for the army of His Majesty. (Each) one of their followers (came) south with tributes. His Majesty appointed the princes anew for [every city]. "
Thutmose III. returned to Karnak after his victory to accompany the gods of Amun as part of the celebrations of the Opet festival on 15th Achet II (September 22nd) . After Hatshepsut opened the Opet festival in the previous years, Thutmose III. for the first time the procession of Amun in connection with an additional victim sacrifice with regard to winning the battle at Megiddo.
Bag list
The Egyptians captured: 340 prisoners, 2041 horses, 191 foals, 6 stallions, some young horses, 2 chariots with gold fittings, 922 further chariots, 1 armored shirt made of bronze, 200 armored shirts made of leather, 502 bows, 7 tent poles with silver fittings made of Meria wood of the King of Kadesch, 1,929 head of cattle, 2,000 goats, 20,500 sheep and 207,300 sacks of wheat from the valley of Jesdraelon (today Jezreel ) .
consequences
The outcome of the battle at Megiddo can be interpreted in different ways. On the one hand, it can be assumed that it was only won with great effort and that the Egyptian king therefore refrained from moving further north to Syria, even if southern Syrian places appear on the place name lists. Assuming a preventive strike, however, the company was very successful: so successful that from now on the enemy is no longer Qadeš, but Mitanni.
The Battle of Megiddo marked the beginning of an almost annual campaign to the Middle East. Thutmose III was guided by this approach. on "glorious models", such as the campaigns of Sesostris III. to Nubia: The annual presence in the region prevents any burgeoning rebellion, and depots and garrisons can create the basis for a more extensive presence .
In addition to the 1st, there were only real field battles in the 8th and 10th campaigns; the others were probably smaller operations. Francis Breyer assumes that the smaller campaigns were rather targeted "raids" with relatively few soldiers. Their presence made it possible to collect gifts. If this was not complied with, those concerned were referred to as "rebels" and the area was looted. From this developed an Egyptian imperialism in the Middle East.
Individual questions
Troop strength
At the time of Thutmose III. the army was in a transition phase. On the one hand it consisted of recruited militias who had been withdrawn from the temple staff, on the other hand, there was an expansion of the professional military. A turn from the army of recruits to the professional army is emerging. The number of troops may have varied greatly depending on the deployment. According to Papyrus Anastasi I, it can be assumed that a division consisted of 4500 to 5000 men. In the Bronze Age, an army often consisted of 5,000 men or a multiple of that number. Troop strengths of over 30,000 men were very rare.
Redford extrapolated the Egyptian troop strength at the Battle of Megiddo: In overcoming the bottleneck, where the troops had to walk in single file, it took six hours from the first man to step out of the gorge to the last. If a man stepped forward every two seconds, that would add up to 10,800 men. That number is astonishingly close to 10,000, which would be an expected army size at that time.
Redford calculated a similar figure for the troop strength of the enemy by extrapolating the average consumption of a soldier from the animals captured. Calculating calories in this way is problematic, however.
Marching speed
The distance between Sile (Tel Hebwa) and Gaza via the ancient North Sinai route is approximately 220 kilometers. The nine-day walking time for this route means that around 15 miles were covered per day. This is considerably slower than the 45 to 50 kilometers per day it took to travel the Sinai route in Greco-Roman times. It should be noted, however, that the troops were loaded not only with weapons, but also with the food for the journey. In addition, there were probably only a few supply stations and one was not yet familiar with the route. From Gaza onwards, the pace was slowed down. The troops covered the 115-kilometer distance to Jehem in eleven days, an average of 10.5 kilometers per day. This was certainly due to the lack of familiarity with the terrain, caution in enemy territory and the wooded area around Joppa.
At these distances, the army is likely to have reached its logistical limits. A soldier can only carry the ration of a few days with him: "It probably consisted of around 10 breads a day and two mugs of beer". The beer for 10,000 men can be transported by around 1,000 donkeys. In view of the march performance, it should have been a starvation ration. Presumably there was also looting in Syria to get more food.
Absolute dating of the battle
The account of the campaign in the annals contains a lunar date that is of great importance for the absolute chronology of the Egyptian New Kingdom. It is one of the rare astronomical dates that can be linked to an exact reign date of an Egyptian king.
"Government year 23, 1st month of the harvest time, day 21, exact day of the new moon festival. Appearance of the king in the morning. The whole army was given orders to set up [the line of battle]. "
Another lunar date from the reign of Thutmose III. Dated one and a half years later: In the year of government 24, on June 30th. the founding of the festival temple in Karnak took place on the day before the beginning of the new lunar month. The dates in question for the new moon can be calculated astronomically. This results in the possible data pairs May 16, 1482/24. February 1480, May 9, 1457/18. February 1455 and May 3, 1432/12. February 1430 (according to the Julian calendar ). With another lunar date from the reign of Ramses II and synchronisms with the Near East, these dates can be narrowed down further, which is why, according to most Egyptologists, only the middle data pair is possible. So the battle of Megiddo took place in 1457 BC. Instead of on April 26th according to our Gregorian calendar (or on May 9th according to the Julian calendar). Only Casperson goes from the year 1504 BC. Chr. From.
| Date of the new moon festival in 1457 BC Chr. | ||||||
| event | Reference point | Gregorian calendar | Egyptian calendar | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Last old light visibility April 25th around 4:30 a.m. local time |
Egypt | 24.-25. April | 19. Schemu I | |||
|
Moon invisible on April 26th at dawn |
Egypt | 25-26 April | 20. Schemu I | |||
| Day of the New Moon Festival : Beginning with sunrise on April 26th |
Egypt | 26.-27. April | 21. Schemu I | |||
Day of battle
The exact day on which the battle took place is controversial. Although it is mentioned in the annals that the battle lines were lined up on day 21 in the first month of the harvest season, Aruna was left on the 19th day and the army should have reached the end of the gorge during the day, whereupon the soldiers asked to get ready for battle the next day. This begs the question of what happened on the 20th day. Faulkner thinks it is impossible for the two armies to sit idle for a whole day. From this he concludes that the sculptor who posted the texts on the temple walls made a mistake and should read day 20 for the day of the battle instead.
In contrast, Helck takes the view that the advance from Megiddo to the position south of Megiddo did not take place until day 20. He considers the translation of the corresponding passage on the 19th day of the march in the city of Aruna to be incorrect and suggests that the city of Aruna should not reach Aruna until that day. With this the battle of the sequence of events is secured for the 21st day.
Lello made another suggestion. Since it says in the text that Thutmose III. got up very early on the 19th day, he says, so early that it was before sunrise. Since the new day in ancient Egypt only began with sunrise, the writer would have estimated this event for the 19th day. Of course, about two hours later, dawn began and with it the 20th day, with which the army left Aruna on that day. On the night of that day the king gave the order to prepare for the battle, which consequently took place on the 21st day.
See also
- Battle of Kadesh between Egyptians and Hittites, 1274 BC Chr.
literature
- Francis Breyer : Egypt and Anatolia. Political, cultural and linguistic contacts between the Nile Valley and Asia Minor in the 2nd millennium BC Chr (= Austrian Academy of Sciences. Memoranda of the overall academy. Vol. 63 = Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 25). Verlag der Österreichischen Akadademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna 2010, ISBN 978-3-7001-6593-4 , esp. Pp. 126-140 (also: Basel, Univ., Diss., 2005).
- Ralf Busch (ed.): Megiddo - Tell el-Mutesellim - Armageddon. Biblical city between war and peace (= publications of the Hamburg Museum for Archeology and the History of Harburg - Helms-Museum. No. 88). Wachholtz, Neumünster 2002, ISBN 3-529-02012-5 .
- Raymond O. Faulkner: The Battle of Megiddo. In: Journal of Egyptian Archeology. (JEA). Vol. 29, 1942, ISSN 0307-5133 , pp. 2-15.
- Hans Goedicke : The Battle of Megiddo. Halgo, Baltimore MD 2000, ISBN 1-89284-001-4 .
- Hans Goedicke: The Background of Thutmose III's Foreign Policy. In: The Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities. (JSSEA). Vol. 10, ISSN 0704-9439 , pp. 201-213.
- Wolfgang Helck : The relations of Egypt to the Middle East in the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC BC (= Egyptological treatises. Vol. 5). 2nd improved edition. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1971, ISBN 3-447-01298-6 , especially p. 118 ff.
- Thomas Kühn: Egypt's rise to world power. The campaigns of Thutmose III. In: Kemet. Vol. 19. No. 3, 2010, ISSN 0943-5972 , pp. 16-25.
- Christian Langer: Aspects of Imperialism in Foreign Policy of the 18th Dynasty (= Northeast African / West Asian Studies. Vol. 7). Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main 2013, ISBN 978-3-653-03445-5 .
- Donald B. Redford : The wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III (= Culture and history of the ancient Near East. Vol. 16). Brill, Leiden et al. 2003, ISBN 90-04-12989-8 .
annals
- Elke Blumenthal , Ingeborg Müller, Walter F. Reineke , Adalheid Burkhardt (eds.): Documents of the 18th dynasty. Historically biographical documents. Translations for volumes 5–16. (= Documents of ancient Egypt. Department 4). Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1984, pp. 188ff., Dept. 2 (Urk IV, 647-756).
- Kurt Galling (Ed.): Text book on the history of Israel. (TGI). 3rd revised edition. Mohr, Tübingen 1979, ISBN 3-16-142361-5 .
- Martin Noth: The Annals of Thutmose III. as a source of history. In: Journal of the German Palestine Association. (ZDPV). Vol. 66, 1943, ISSN 0012-1169 , pp. 156-174.
- Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi : From the annals of Thutmose III: First campaign against Megiddo. In: Francis Breyer: State contracts, rulers' inscriptions and other documents on political history (= texts from the environment of the Old Testament . (TUAT). New series. Volume 2). Gütersloher Verlags-Haus, Gütersloh 2005, ISBN 3-579-05288-8 , pp. 212-220.
Dating
- Wolfgang Helck : The date of the battle of Megiddo. In: Communications from the German Archaeological Institute, Cairo Department. (MDAIK). No. 28, 1972, ISSN 0342-1279 , pp. 101-102.
- Glenn Lello: Thutmose III's First Lunar Date. In: Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 37, 1978, pp. 327-330.
- Richard A. Parker : The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II. In: Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 16, 1957, pp. 39-43.
Web links
- meritneith.de: Thutmose III. - Napoleon of Egypt
- sachmet.ch: The stele Thutmose 'III. at Gebel Barkal Edition, transcription and translation
- reshafim.org: Thutmose III: The Napata Stela
- reshafim.org: Thutmose III: The Battle of Megiddo
Individual evidence
- ↑ Nicholas Reeves : Akhenaten. Egypt's false prophet (= cultural history of the ancient world . Vol. 91). von Zabern, Mainz, 2002, ISBN 3-8053-2828-1 , p. 36.
- ↑ Michael Höveler-Müller : In the beginning there was Egypt. The history of the Pharaonic high culture from the early days to the end of the New Kingdom approx. 4000-1070 BC. Chr. (= Cultural history of the ancient world. Vol. 101). von Zabern, Mainz 2005, ISBN 3-8053-3444-3 , p. 180 ff.
- ↑ Wolfgang Helck: The relations of Egypt to the Middle East in the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC Chr. Wiesbaden 1971, pp. 118–119.
- ^ Thomas Schneider : Lexicon of the Pharaohs. Patmos Albatros Verlag, Düsseldorf 2002, ISBN 3-491-96053-3 , p. 293.
- ^ A b Francis Breyer: Egypt and Anatolia. P. 127.
- ↑ Christian Langer: Aspects of Imperialism in Foreign Policy of the 18th Dynasty. Frankfurt am Main 2013, pp. 61–62.
- ↑ a b Wolfgang Helck: Relationships ... Wiesbaden 1971, p. 119.
- ↑ Donald B. Redford: The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. P. 200.
- ↑ Heike Sternberg-el Hotabi: From the annals of Thutmosis' III. P. 212; see also: Bertha Porter, Rosalind LB Moss: Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. Volume 2: Theban Temples. 2nd edition, revised and augmented. Griffith Institute, Oxford 1972, pp. 97-98.
- ↑ Thomas Kühn: Thutmose's campaigns III. P. 16.
- ↑ Thomas Kühn: Thutmose's campaigns III. P. 16; Goedicke: The Battle of Megiddo. P. 119.
- ↑ Martin Noth: The Annals of Thutmose III. as a source of history. P. 156 ff.
- ^ Wolfgang Helck: Relationships ... Wiesbaden 1971, p. 120.
- ↑ Donald B. Redford: The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. S. XV.
- ^ JB Bury : History of the Later Roman Empire. New Dover edition. Volume 1. New York NY 1958, p. VII.
- ^ A b c Donald B. Redford: The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. P. 43 f.
- ↑ Wolfgang Helck: Relationships ... Wiesbaden 1971, p. 122 f.
- ^ Francis Breyer: Egypt and Anatolia. P. 120.
- ↑ Wolfgang Helck: Relationships ... Wiesbaden 1971, p. 117 ff.
- ^ Hans Goedicke: The Battle of Megiddo. P. 119.
- ↑ Manfred Weippert: Historical text book for the Old Testament (= floor plans for the Old Testament. Vol. 10). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2010, ISBN 978-3-525-51693-5 , p. 105.
- ^ Jan Assmann : Eulogy-Koenigs. In: Wolfgang Helck, Eberhard Otto (Hrsg.): Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Volume 2: Harvest Festival - Hordjedef. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1977, ISBN 3-447-01876-3 , pp. 40-46.
- ↑ Donald B. Redford: The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. P. 153 ff.
- ↑ Elke Blumenthal, Ingeborg Müller, Walter F. Reineke (ed.): Documents of the 18th Dynasty. P. 260f. (Urk IV, 906 f.)
- ↑ Donald B. Redford: The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. P. 129.
- ↑ Elke Blumenthal, Ingeborg Müller, Walter F. Reineke (ed.): Documents of the 18th Dynasty. P. 232ff. (Urk IV 757-763).
- ↑ Donald B. Redford: The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. P. 145 ff.
- ↑ Wolfgang Helck: Relationships ... Wiesbaden 1971, p. 120 and note 53.
- ↑ a b c d e TGI p. 15.
- ↑ Thomas Kühn: Thutmose III's campaigns. P. 17.
- ↑ Elke Blumenthal, Ingeborg Müller, Walter F. Reineke (ed.): Documents of the 18th Dynasty. P. 190f. (Urk IV, 650).
- ↑ a b Elke Blumenthal, Ingeborg Müller, Walter F. Reineke (eds.): Documents of the 18th Dynasty. P. 191. (Urk IV, 651).
- ↑ Wolfgang Helck: Relationships ... Wiesbaden 1971, p. 124.
- ↑ TGI p. 16.
- ↑ a b c d e f TGI p. 17.
- ↑ Elke Blumenthal, Ingeborg Müller, Walter F. Reineke (ed.): Documents of the 18th Dynasty. P. 193. (Urk IV, 657).
- ↑ Wolfgang Helck: Relationships ... Wiesbaden 1971, p. 125.
- ↑ Elke Blumenthal, Ingeborg Müller, Walter F. Reineke (ed.): Documents of the 18th Dynasty. P. 194. (Urk IV, 658-659).
- ↑ a b Thomas Kühn: Thutmose's campaigns III. P. 19.
- ↑ TGI p. 18, cf. also Dtn 20.19 f.
- ↑ Wolfgang Helck (Ed.): Documents of the 18th Dynasty. Historically biographical documents. Translations for issues 7–22. (= Documents of ancient Egypt. Department 4). Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1961, p. 8, section 2 (Urk IV, 1234); see also: GA Reisner, MB Reisner: Inscribed Monuments from Gebel Barkal. Part 2: The Granite Stela of Thutmose III. In: Journal for Egyptian Language and Antiquity. Vol. 69, 1933, ISSN 0044-216X , pp. 24-39, especially p. 31 ff.
- ^ So: Wolfgang Helck: Relations ... Wiesbaden 1971, p. 125; Donald B. Redford: Wars in Syria and Palestine. P. 109; Francis Breyer: Egypt and Anatolia. P. 135 f.
- ^ Hans Goedicke: The Battle of Megiddo. Pp. 89-91.
- ↑ Elke Blumenthal, Ingeborg Müller, Walter F. Reineke (eds.): Documents of the 18th Dynasty. P. 195. (Urk IV, 662-663).
- ^ Siegfried Schott : Altägyptische Festdaten (= Academy of Sciences and Literature. Treatises of the humanities and social sciences class. (AM-GS). 1950, 10, ISSN 0002-2977 ). Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur et al., Mainz et al. 1950, p. 85.
- ^ Francis Breyer: Egypt and Anatolia. P. 136.
- ^ A b Francis Breyer: Egypt and Anatolia. P. 130.
- ^ A b Francis Breyer: Egypt and Anatolia. P. 131.
- ↑ Christian Langer: Aspects of Imperialism in Foreign Policy of the 18th Dynasty. Frankfurt am Main 2013, pp. 125–126; Paul John Frandsen: Egyptian Imperialism. In: Mogens Trolle Larsen (Ed.): Power and Propaganda. A Symposium of Ancient Empires (= Mesopotamia. 7). Akademisk forlag, Copenhagen 1979, ISBN 87-500-1878-7 , pp. 167–190, especially p. 177 ff.
- ↑ Donald B. Redford: The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. P. 195ff .; also: Francis Breyer: Egypt and Anatolia. P. 130; Andrea Maria Gnirs: Was in Ancient Egypt. The New Kingdom. Blackwell, Malden MA et al. 2005, ISBN 1-405-11371-5 ; A. Gnirs: Military and Society. A contribution to the social history of the New Kingdom (= studies on the archeology and history of ancient Egypt. Vol. 17). Heidelberger Orientverlag, Heidelberg, 1996, ISBN 3-927552-30-5 (also: Heidelberg, Univ., Diss., 1991).
- ↑ Donald B. Redford: The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. P. 195 ff.
- ↑ Donald B. Redford: The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. P. 202 ff.
- ↑ Elke Blumenthal, Ingeborg Müller, Walter F. Reineke (ed.): Documents of the 18th Dynasty. P. 193 (Urk IV, 657).
- ↑ Jürgen von Beckerath : Chronology of Pharaonic Egypt. The timing of Egyptian history from prehistoric times to 332 BC BC (= Munich Egyptological Studies. Vol. 46). von Zabern, Mainz 1997, ISBN 3-8053-2310-7 , p. 50 ff.
- ↑ Lee W. Casperson: The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III. In: Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 45, 1986, pp. 139-150.
- ^ Raymond O. Faulkner: The Battle of Megiddo. P. 11. This view was followed by: Richard A. Parker: The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II. P. 40 and: Martin Noth: Die Annalen Thutmose III. as a source of history. Note 5.
- ↑ Wolfgang Helck: The date of the battle of Megiddo. Pp. 101-102. This also follows: Edward F. Wente: Thutmose III's Accession and the Beginning of the New Kingdom. In: Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 34, 1975, pp. 265-272.
- ↑ Glenn Lello: Thutmose III's First Lunar Date. P. 329 f.