|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 27, 2017 16:33:31 GMT
Thanks Stevie, dates are a mess, so fitting armies into context against opponents, where and when known becomes more important.
I still cannot find out why my father in WW2 got an "Italy Star", why, because he never left India/Burma. Oh well, geography was never my good point.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 27, 2017 19:21:28 GMT
P.S. In Dba 3.0 terms the Battle of Kadesh is mentioned in the narative of the I/24 Hittite Empire 1380 BC-1180 BC as occuring in 1274BC and mentions the innovation of the introduction of the Hittite Hch which is probably reflective of the (b) list start date of 1274BC...so the new Hittite Hch are provided for in the list at that date, but poor Ramses II can't have his Sherden guard (also mentioned as present at the battle), that he created from prisoners he captured fighting a battle against Sea people 3-4 years before?š
You know, I think you may be right.
Even using the DBA Army List chronology, it was Rameses II (1279 - 1213 BC) who fought the Hittites at Kadesh (1274 BC), and there is ample historical evidence that he had Sherden mercenaries/guardsmen at that battle.
After all, the DBMM New Kingdom army list allows for two elements of āShardana Royal Guardā from 1276 BC.
But then there is the question of numbers.
With some 20,000 Egyptians at Kadesh, a single element represents about 1,600 men (i.e. one twelfth of the army).
The sources seem to imply that āsomeā of the Sherden mercenaries were promoted to guardsmen, but how many?
50 of them , a 100, 200, more? Certainly not enough for a full DBA element of 1,600.
Nonetheless, some Sherden mercenaries were apparently present.
So hereās a suggestion:-
Why not have one of the 3 x spearmen (3Bd) of army list I/22a representing the āMercenary Sherdenā.
A different name, different figures, but the same type of element, so the army composition is unchanged.
This seems to be the simplest solution.
But this still shows Sherden were attacking Egypt prior to 1274 BC as Ramses II was all to willing to brag (the Stele at Tanis)about laying a trap and beating the "unruly Sherden who no person knew how to beat"who came in their warships....and taking the prisoners into his army...so the start date of the (I/28) Sea Peoples list is questionable. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 27, 2017 22:03:36 GMT
But this still shows Sherden were attacking Egypt prior to 1274 BC as Ramses II was all to willing to brag (the Stele at Tanis) about laying a trap and beating the "unruly Sherden who no person knew how to beat", who came in their warships....and taking the prisoners into his army...so the start date of the (I/28) Sea Peoples list is questionable.
Ahā¦yes, youāve got me there.
Well Iām convinced.
Now we just have to convince timurilank.
Rameses II (reigned 1279 - 1213 BC): defeated the Sherden sea pirates in the 2nd year of his reign (1278 BC).
But this was a sea battle. Nonetheless, he incorporated them into his army and promoted some to be guardsmen.
Merneptah (reigned 1213 - 1203 BC): defeated the Libyans and allied Sea Peoples in the 5th year of his reign (1209 BC).
This confederacy is nicely covered by army I/7b Early Libyans, who can have the I/28 Sea Peoples as allies.
So here we have two historical references of the I/28 Sea Peoples fighting the I/22a Egyptians before 1200 BC.
Therefore:-
I/28 Sea Peoples (1208 BC - 1176 BC) change start date from 1208 to 1278 BC. [historical edit]
I/28 Sea Peoples (1278 BC - 1176 BC) add I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians (1543 BC - 1200 BC). [historical edit]
I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians (1543 BC - 1200 BC) add I/28 Sea Peoples (from 1278 BC). [historical edit]
(This wonāt upset the Sea Peoples other enemiesā¦the I/7b Libyans and the I/26 Trojan Wars don't start until 1250 BC, while the I/20a Ugarit and I/24b Hittites both start 1274 BC)
What say you timurilank? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 27, 2017 22:22:07 GMT
But this still shows Sherden were attacking Egypt prior to 1274 BC as Ramses II was all to willing to brag (the Stele at Tanis) about laying a trap and beating the "unruly Sherden who no person knew how to beat", who came in their warships....and taking the prisoners into his army...so the start date of the (I/28) Sea Peoples list is questionable.
Ahā¦yes, youāve got me there.
Well Iām convinced.
Now we just have to convince timurilank.
Rameses II (reigned 1279 - 1213 BC): defeated the Sherden sea pirates in the 2nd year of his reign (1278 BC).
But this was a sea battle. Nonetheless, he incorporated them into his army and promoted some to be guardsmen.
Merneptah (reigned 1213 - 1203 BC): defeated the Libyans and allied Sea Peoples in the 5th year of his reign (1209 BC).
This confederacy is nicely covered by army I/7b Early Libyans, who can have the I/28 Sea Peoples as allies.
So here we have two historical references of the I/28 Sea Peoples fighting the I/22a Egyptians before 1200 BC.
Therefore:-
I/28 Sea Peoples (1208 BC - 1176 BC) change start date from 1208 to 1278 BC.Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā [historical edit]
I/28 Sea Peoples (1278 BC - 1176 BC) add I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians (1543 BC - 1200 BC).Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā [historical edit]
I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians (1543 BC - 1200 BC) add I/28 Sea Peoples (from 1278 BC). Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā [historical edit]
(This wonāt upset the Sea Peoples other enemiesā¦the I/7b Libyans and the I/26 Trojan WarsĀ don't start until 1250 BC, whileĀ the I/20a Ugarit and I/24b Hittites both start 1274 BC)
What say you timurilank?
If the reference for Merneptah is from the Battle of Perire then we have some numbers...Libyan casualties 6,359 men,2,370 others and 218 Kehek..at least 3,000 prisoners were sea peoples (page 4...Armies and Enemies of Ancient Egypt and Assyria...Alan Buttery).š |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 28, 2017 7:18:08 GMT
But this still shows Sherden were attacking Egypt prior to 1274 BC as Ramses II was all to willing to brag (the Stele at Tanis) about laying a trap and beating the "unruly Sherden who no person knew how to beat", who came in their warships....and taking the prisoners into his army...so the start date of the (I/28) Sea Peoples list is questionable.
Ahā¦yes, youāve got me there.
Well Iām convinced.
Now we just have to convince timurilank.
Rameses II (reigned 1279 - 1213 BC): defeated the Sherden sea pirates in the 2nd year of his reign (1278 BC).
But this was a sea battle. Nonetheless, he incorporated them into his army and promoted some to be guardsmen.
Merneptah (reigned 1213 - 1203 BC): defeated the Libyans and allied Sea Peoples in the 5th year of his reign (1209 BC).
This confederacy is nicely covered by army I/7b Early Libyans, who can have the I/28 Sea Peoples as allies.
So here we have two historical references of the I/28 Sea Peoples fighting the I/22a Egyptians before 1200 BC.
Therefore:-
I/28 Sea Peoples (1208 BC - 1176 BC) change start date from 1208 to 1278 BC. [historical edit]
I/28 Sea Peoples (1278 BC - 1176 BC) add I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians (1543 BC - 1200 BC). [historical edit]
I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians (1543 BC - 1200 BC) add I/28 Sea Peoples (from 1278 BC). [historical edit]
(This wonāt upset the Sea Peoples other enemiesā¦the I/7b Libyans and the I/26 Trojan Wars don't start until 1250 BC, while the I/20a Ugarit and I/24b Hittites both start 1274 BC)
What say you timurilank?
Gentlemen, I am travelling to Brussels in an hour and will make a response when I return Tuesday afternoon. Cheers, |
|
|
|
Post by martin on May 28, 2017 8:14:21 GMT
To add fuel to the fire, there IS an 'alternative' chronology for Ancient Egypt. The details escape me, but it involves the loss or gain of a century or two, due to issues with how dates were recorded, and has some credence in certain academic circles. I think, from memory, it would cause pandemonium with our list cross referencing........so maybe not go there !!
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on May 28, 2017 8:25:11 GMT
Found it - In fact, I may be a few centuries adrift......but this (below) does show how we should maybe be a bit cautious when trying to define in any 'hard and fast' way the relevant enemies of any particular army.
This was a reply on the Society of Ancients forum re a gap between the NKEs and an adjacent list:-
" Quote from: Erpingham on August 15, 2013, 08:12:50 AM
I fear you may be opening a can of worms here Martin.......
The standard chronology (on which the lists are based) has the so-called '21st Dynasty', a succession of priests, ruling Egypt during the period in question. One noteworthy feature about these priests is their almost total lack of armies. Hence no list.
- Quote from: Mark G on August 15, 2013, 07:31:36 AM
not at all my area, but wasn't Egypt governed by foreigners for a couple of periods?
I am of course talking about pre Persian Egypt.-
Correct. In addition to the periods between the Old and Middle Kingdoms (unidentified invaders) and between the Middle and New Kingdoms (Hyksos domination), we have two periods of foreign rule during the New Kingdom itself: Libyan (traditionally c.946-720) and Ethiopian (c.720-663). Most historians end the New Kingdom prior to the Libyan dominion.
For those interested, the period between the Old (1st-6th Dynasties) and Middle (11th to 13th Dynasties) Kingdoms is referred to as the First Intermediate Period. That between the Middle and New (18th-20th) Dynasties is referred to as the Second Intermediate Period. Following the New Kingdom, prior to the reassertion of Egyptian rule following 663 BC (Esarhaddon finally defeated the Ethiopians), is what historians call the Third Intermediate Period, when Egypt was under the Libyans and Ethiopians.
Hence:
Old Kingdom (1st to 6th Dynasties)
First Intermediate Period ('7th' to '10th' Dynasties)
Middle Kingdom (11th to 13th Dynasties)
Second Intermediate Period (14th to 17th Dynasties)
New Kingdom (18th to 20th Dynasties)
Priests ('21st Dynasty')
Third Intermediate Period ('22nd' to '25th' Dynasties)
Late or Saitic Period (663-525 BC)
Persian Period (525 - c.395 BC)
Sebennytic Period (c.395-335 BC) [Persia then held Egypt for 3 years]
Hellenistic Period (332-30 BC)
The '21st Dynasty' succession of priests (who gave themselves double crown titles and hence are assumed to have ruled Egypt) is generally placed in the 11th-10th millennium BC. This timing was a godsend to Egyptologists trying to make the Sothic chronology work, but that - and the mistake they made - is another story.
"
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 28, 2017 9:15:07 GMT
Good points Martinā¦although I believe that by the New Kingdom period the date discrepancies are down to mere decades rather than the centuries that potentially exist in the Old or Middle Kingdom chronology.
However, we are fortunate in that our problem is of a much simpler nature.
If we put aside all questions of dates for the moment:-
* Rameses II fought the Sea Peoples (as shown on the Tanis Stele II, and they were part of his army at Kadesh).
* His successor Merneptah also fought them as allies of the Libyans (as shown on the Great Karnak Inscription).
* The Army Lists have both these Pharaohs assigned to army list I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians.
* Therefore, army list I/22a and the I/28 Sea Peoples should be mutual enemies.
Basically, Rameses II and the Sea Peoples should be together, whatever the actual dating system chosen.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 28, 2017 16:00:39 GMT
Thought, could a hash or star be put in front of an army list that is a known opponent, but does not tally with the date.
So Sea Peoples would add a hash or star in font of Rameses II list number, and Rameses II would add a hash or star in front of the Sea People list number.
It would work for Allia as well.
NOTE - I use a Mac with no hash on the keyboard, but it has a star. Minor but important point for different computer users.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 28, 2017 20:20:21 GMT
Thought, could a hash or star be put in front of an army list that is a known opponent, but does not tally with the date. So Sea Peoples would add a hash or star in font of Rameses II list number, and Rameses II would add a hash or star in front of the Sea People list number. It would work for Allia as well. NOTE - I use a Mac with no hash on the keyboard, but it has a star. Minor but important point for different computer users. David Constable Hmmmā¦Iām not so sure that is a good idea David. Itās as if we were saying āHere is a date error, and we know about it, but we havenāt got the courage to change itā.That doesnāt sound very confident. If itās wrong then letās change it. As it happens, Iām currently adding a very brief explanation for the reason of each edit at the end of each entry:- [date mismatch]ā¦for when the dates donāt correspond. [mutual error]ā¦ā¦.for when an enemy is not mentioned by both armies. [geographical]ā¦ā¦.for armies that couldnāt possibly have reached each other. [historical error]ā¦.for conflicts that are historically documented, but not mentioned. [information]ā¦ā¦ā¦to give people a bit more data and guidance. [clarification]ā¦ā¦ā¦when a main army is listed, but not which sub-list is being referred to. All the edits we are suggesting are purely provisional however. We cannot force people to accept them. They will still have the original Army Lists in the Great Purple Book to go by if they prefer. Of course, should they dislike the edits then they will have to find their own explanations as to how Rameses II fought the Sea Peoples, incorporated them into his army, and made some of them Royal Guards to fight at the battle of Kadesh, when the DBA Army List says they didnāt even exist until 70 years later!  |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on May 29, 2017 4:36:52 GMT
As it happens, Iām currently adding a very brief explanation for the reason of each edit at the end of each entry:- [date mismatch]ā¦for when the dates donāt correspond. [mutual error]ā¦ā¦.for when an enemy is not mentioned by both armies. [geographical]ā¦ā¦.for armies that couldnāt possibly have reached each other. [historical error]ā¦.for conflicts that are historically documented, but not mentioned. [information]ā¦ā¦ā¦to give people a bit more data and guidance. [clarification]ā¦ā¦ā¦when a main army is listed, but not which sub-list is being referred to. Is that the only category of a historical error you or DBA is interested in? For example, your: "conflicts that are historically documented, but not mentioned," would presumably result in an additional enemy. But very closely related is: "conflicts that are historically documented, but not included within the date ranges," would result in a change in dates. As an example there is an explicit reference, in a Chinese source, to battles between Koguryo and China 300 years before the start of the Koguryo list. I could go on, there are a lot of them... As an aside, and as we have discussed, 4 is a massively different issue to 1, 2 and 3. 1. date mismatch 2. enemy mismatch or ally mismatch 3. geographical 4. historical error |
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 29, 2017 7:10:42 GMT
I was thinking that a hash or star would simplify things, no need for explanations, and if you are not talking about a few years, but centuries, then it becomes a bigger problem to do date changes.
I suspect with Romans that several battles might well have been fought with an older style army and tactics, how long did it take most of the Roman army to change equipment, or even in some cases tactics.
You have to be careful that your list of changes does not end up longer than the original lists.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 29, 2017 9:27:43 GMT
In answer to Dangunās post, yes, I suppose I should clarify what is meant by an āHistorical Errorā. These are major conflicts that are well documented by ancient historians and chronicles but have somehow been missed or forgotten by the compilers of the DBA 3.0 Army lists, and would result in the adding of additional enemies. But it also covers the opposite situation, where the Army Lists have armies listed as enemies of each other who never actually fought one another in reality. Here are some examples (Iāve posted these before, but bare with me):- The Cimbrian War: the II/33 Polybian Romans suffered half a dozen major defeats by the II/47a Cimbri (one of them, at Arausio 105 BC, resulted in some 80,000 Roman deadā¦more than they lost at Cannae). It was these disasters that led to Mariusā unconstitutional election as Consul fives times in a row and his reforming of the Roman Army. The Army Lists forgets to mention it. The Rus-Khazar Wars: the III/16 Khazar state was crippled, and their capital Atil was sacked and destroyed, by the III/48 Rus in the 10th century (Iām sure that players would be up in arms if the Norman conquest of Anglo-Saxon England had been missed out of the Army Listsā¦this is the same thing). The Army Lists forgets to mention it. Rameses IIās conflict with the Sherden Sea People pirates appears to be another āforgotten warā, one that led to the Sherden being incorporated into his army, the formation of the Shardana Royal Guard, and their use in the battle of Kadesh some 5 years laterā¦all some 70 years before the Sea Peoples start date. But remember that the primary focus is to have Rameses IIās army of I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians (1543-1200 BC) and the I/28 Sea Peoples (1208-1176 BC) as mutual enemies to allow for this conflict. The date change is only secondary, and is merely for the sake of consistency. Also note that, so far, it is the only date change edit proposed. (I should point out however that we have yet to get the approval of Timurilankā¦nothing in these edits, not a dot nor comma, is to be included unless the decision is unanimous. After all, I donāt want to take all the blame if it turns out to be wrong! )But I will be the first to admit that I am no fountain of knowledge. It was Haardrada (bless him) that first spotted this potential error. Without his input I would have remained blissfully ignorant as my understanding of ancient Egypt is severely limited. So if anyone does have any suggestions, comments, criticisms, or observations they think should be considered, then please do post them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on May 29, 2017 13:43:21 GMT
There's also the odd variant, where we might have an army list, but there is not a single historical battle ever mentioned by any historical source.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 29, 2017 17:32:05 GMT
Rameses IIās conflict with the Sherden Sea People pirates appears to be another āforgotten warā, one that led to the Sherden being incorporated into his army, the formation of the Shardana Royal Guard, and their use in the battle of Kadesh some 5 years laterā¦all some 70 years before the Sea Peoples start date. But remember that the primary focus is to have Rameses IIās army of I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians (1543-1200 BC) and the I/28 Sea Peoples (1208-1176 BC) as mutual enemies to allow for this conflict. The date change is only secondary, and is merely for the sake of consistency. Also note that, so far, it is the only date change edit proposed. (I should point out however that we have yet to get the approval of Timurilankā¦nothing in these edits, not a dot nor comma, is to be included unless the decision is unanimous. After all, I donāt want to take all the blame if it turns out to be wrong! )But I will be the first to admit that I am no fountain of knowledge. It was Haardrada (bless him) that first spotted this potential error. Without his input I would have remained blissfully ignorant as my understanding of ancient Egypt is severely limited. So if anyone does have any suggestions, comments, criticisms, or observations they think should be considered, then please do post them.
Stevie,
I believe this topic will remain something of a ābiblical plagueā until we find some plausible answers.
Firstly, I found this unlikely that the issue of the early Sherden appearance (Ramesses II) had not been handled earlier in Slingshot. I read that Simon has provided Fanaticus with initial findings; hopefully more will appear in the future.
As part of the seafaring confederation known as the Sea Peoples, there must be evidence of a home that functioned as a base of operations as I found it unlikely the Sherden sailed from Sardinia to confront Ramesses II. Pottery remains or similar architectural styles found in the eastern Mediterranean would help substantiate this but I could find nothing. Rassu is useful if readers wish to see such evidence found in Sardinia and Italy. (Shardana e Filistei in Italia: Nouve architecture in Sardegna alle fine dell'etaĢ del bronzo finale, (XII-XI. secolo a. C.) by Massimo Rassu)
The fact for Sherden troops being employed as the Royal bodyguard for Ramesses II comes from the āPoem of Kadeshā and this is contested by Mohamed Raafat Abbas, Minister of antiquities (Egypt); the term ābodyguardā actually describes āretainersā. The Royal bodyguard consisted of both Egyptian and Sherden troops.
How the Sherden came to be employed in Pharaohās army is suggested by the common practice of enlisting captives as was done with the Nubian and Libyan before. I am not overly convinced that this was the case for the Sherden as the battle in year two of Ramesses II refers (my readings) to the Sea People. It is not impossible for the Sherden to have sought employment during the reign of Ramesses II as did the Germans and Vikings did during the Nikephorian to Komnenian Byzantine period.
But correct me if I am wrong, I seem to recall J.H. Breasted āAncient Recordsā work used as a reference for the āArmies of the Ancient Near Eastā by Stillman and Tallis. In āAncient Records of Egyptā, volume 3 which covers the 19th Dynasty you will find a full account in the Great Karnak Inscription of the victory over the Libyans. In the title of the document we read:
āBeginning of the victory which his majesty achieved in the land of Libya ā Erwesh, Teresh, Luka, Sherden, Shekelesh, Northerners coming from all lands. ā
For a document of its kind it does detail the campaign and victory attributed to Merneptah, son of Ramesses II, which places the confrontation of the Sea Peoples and the Sherden in the I/22a New Kingdom Egyptian list of enemies.
I would suggest this is a better reference to add of I/28 Sea Peoples to the I/22a New Kingdom Egyptian list of enemies with a footnote to the references.
Note:
J.H. Breasted, Volume III, Article 569, p.238, can be found on Google books. Unfortunately, large parts of the text are missing and must be restored.
archive.org/stream/BreastedJ.H.AncientRecordsEgyptAll5Vols1906/Breasted%2C%20J.H._Ancient%20Records%20Egypt%20all%205%20vols%20%281906%29#page/n1087/mode/2up
The Bodyguard of Ramesses II and the Battle of Kadesh, by Mohamed Raafat Abbas.
www.enim-egyptologie.fr/revue/2016/8/Raafat_ENiM9_113-123.swf.pdf
|
|
