|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 29, 2017 20:22:50 GMT
Rameses II’s conflict with the Sherden Sea People pirates appears to be another ‘forgotten war’, 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 later…all some 70 years before the Sea Peoples start date. But remember that the primary focus is to have Rameses II’s 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 Timurilank…nothing in these edits, not a dot nor comma, is to be included unless the decision is unanimous. After all, I don’t 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 ‘biblical plague’ 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'età 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 ‘Poem of Kadesh’ and this is contested by Mohamed Raafat Abbas, Minister of antiquities (Egypt); the term ‘bodyguard’ actually describes ‘retainers’. The Royal bodyguard consisted of both Egyptian and Sherden troops.
How the Sherden came to be employed in Pharaoh’s 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 “Ancient Records” work used as a reference for the ‘Armies of the Ancient Near East’ by Stillman and Tallis. In ‘Ancient Records of Egypt’, 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:
“Beginning of the victory which his majesty achieved in the land of Libya – Erwesh, Teresh, Luka, Sherden, Shekelesh, Northerners coming from all lands. “
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
It can be considered a problem as to the origins of the Sherden and other sea peoples as much is still speculation.As I mentioned Sherden appear in the Amarna letters (1350BC-1320BC) in Caanan.Lukka (Lycians?) and Danuna (Danaoi-Greeks?)are also mentioned too.So these guys were certainly moving around even before Ramses II.Also the theory that the Peleset became the Philistines still has not been established,nor the theory that the Sherden settled in Sardinia or that they were originally a Nuragic culture. On the subject of J H Breasted I am suprised another entry in one of his other works A History of the Ancient Egyptians (1908)has been missed?...The Hittites employing Lycian pirates as mercenaries and The Egyptians likewise employing Sherden amongst their mercenaries for the Battle of Kadesh (pages 303-304)...Then later employing the Sherden as a recognized contingent. Link:https://archive.org/details/historyoftheanci034958mbp |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 29, 2017 23:13:18 GMT
Excellent references Timurilank. Thanks for those. I myself have found a full downloadable copy of J.H. Breasted’s “Ancient Records of Egypt” here:- onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Breasted%2C%20James%20Henry%2C%201865-1935Download Volume III (19th dynasty), go to page 102 for the Reign of Rameses II, then search for the word ‘Sherden’.
I found 13 entries, half of them attributed to the reign of Merneptah.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.
I agree:-
I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians (1543-1200 BC) add I/28 Sea Peoples (1208-1176 BC)
I/28 Sea Peoples (1208-1176 BC) add I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians (1543-1200 BC)
(Note that in this case no date changes are necessary, as the dates do overlap. That's Pharaoh Merneptah sorted.
However, for Rameses II, read on…..)
The fact for Sherden troops being employed as the Royal bodyguard for Ramesses II comes from the ‘Poem of Kadesh’ and this is contested by Mohamed Raafat Abbas, Minister of antiquities (Egypt); the term ‘bodyguard’ actually describes ‘retainers’.
The Royal bodyguard consisted of both Egyptian and Sherden troops.
Actually, a close reading of Mohamed Raafat Abbas that you posted shows that he in fact does not contest the presence of the Sherden as bodyguards (although the Royal Guard was probably a body of mixed troops), but he actually supports the notion that Rameses II fought the Sea People before the battle of Kadesh.
If I may quote him from page 119:-
“Finally, I have to state that the royal bodyguard of Ramesses II in the Battle of Kadesh were consisting of the Egyptian soldiers who were holding round-topped shields, and the Sherden warriors with round shields and horn-crested helmets [fig. 2-7]. The Sherden were amongst the Sea Peoples who attacked Egypt in the Ramesside period, but they were first mentioned in Egyptian records during the reign of Amenhotep III, in the Amarna letters, where Sherden are spoken of as belonging to an Egyptian garrison at Byblos. Sherden raiders had attacked the Nile Delta some time before Ramesses II’s northern campaign. After the attacking of Sherden on Egypt, they being captured and were impressed into the Egyptian army and became one of the best troops employed by the Egyptians. Hence, they appeared amongst the Pharaoh’s bodyguard in the famous Battle of Kadesh. Additionally, at the beginning of Ramesses II’s poetical account on the Battle of Kadesh, he tells how “he made ready his army, his chariotry and the Sherden whom his majesty had captured”; here the exclusive mention of this foreign people show the important part they already played in the Egyptian army.”
And again in Mohamed Raafat Abbas’ footnotes:-
“(37) I have stated before that A.R. Schulman noticed that term wdpw m ẖnw “household butlers”, which is mentioned in this section, refers to the bodyguard of the king or a part of them at least, according to their military role. See: A.R. SCHULMAN, op. cit., p. 123.
(38) KRI II, 10; KRITA II, 3. 39 K.A. Kitchen (RITA II, 3) has translated the word šmsw here as “followers”, but I set here its translation as “bodyguard”.”
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.
Well, there are references that Sherden Sea People pirates that Rameses II defeated at the Nile Delta in the second year of his reign in 1278 BC also contained Shekelesh (Šqrsšw or Sicels from Sicily) and Lukka (L’kkw, possibly the later Lycians).
That would give them a base in southern Anatolia…a distance comparable to that of the Vikings crossing the North Sea to reach England.
So, do we change the start date of the Sea Peoples to 1278 BC or not, that is the big question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on May 30, 2017 4:00:13 GMT
Why don't you ask the person who wrote the list the first time around to see what they were thinking?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 30, 2017 6:03:17 GMT
Well, there are references that Sherden Sea People pirates that Rameses II defeated at the Nile Delta in the second year of his reign in 1278 BC also contained Shekelesh (Šqrsšw or Sicels from Sicily) and Lukka (L’kkw, possibly the later Lycians).
That would give them a base in southern Anatolia…a distance comparable to that of the Vikings crossing the North Sea to reach England.
So, do we change the start date of the Sea Peoples to 1278 BC or not, that is the big question.
Regarding the question of a base, the Sherden could easily have landed in Libya before moving on to Egypt, which would make better sense.
Changing the start date by seven decades opens more questions than I would have time for. How many other lists would be affected by the change of the start date? How many other lists would have their start date changed (Early Italian tribes, Sardinia, Sicel)?
At this moment, I am content to add the Sea People to the New Kingdom Egyptian 'a' sub-list of enemies and perhaps leaving a footnote that the I/28 Sea Peoples start date is disputed. On the subject of pirates, why do the Cilician Pirates (Republic and Marian Roman period) not have an army list?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 30, 2017 21:34:41 GMT
Very well…let’s leave the dates unchanged.
But actually, the impact of changing the Sea Peoples start date from 1208 BC to 1278 BC would have minimal effect:-
The 1/4d Gasgans (start date of 1650 BC), the I/20b Syro-Canaanites (start 1595 BC), and the I/22b New Kingdom Egyptians (1199 BC) would be completely unaffected, while the 1/7b Early Libyans and I/26 Trojan Wars (both staring in 1250 BC), and the I/20a Ugarit and the I/24b Later Hittites (both starting in 1274 BC) would merely have the Sea Peoples as an enemy a few decades earlier than their current start date of 1208 BC.
As for the I/36b Sardinians (700-124 BC), the 1/36c Sicels (480-380 BC), and the 1/36d Italian Hill Tribes (1000-290 BC), they wouldn’t notice the date change at all as they are totally outside of the Sea Peoples time period.
However (and I’m playing ‘devils advocate’ here), it is interesting that Phil Barker chose 1208 BC to be the start date of the Sea Peoples.
Why?
The only major event that I can find in this year is the battle of Perire between the Libyan-Sea People against Rameses II successor, his 60 year old third son Merneptah during his 5th year as Pharaoh. Perhaps Mr Barker was fully aware all along about Rameses II victory over the Sherden in 1278 BC, but discounted it because it was a sea battle, not a land battle...and DBA is for land battles only.
When there is a dispute over an issue, often the best solution is a compromise.
And I think that allowing the I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians and the I/28 Sea Peoples to be mutual enemies does that (with the additional information that the Sea Peoples start date is disputed of course).
After all, if army I/22a and army I/28 are on the table, who is to say whether it is the year 1208 BC and the Egyptian commander is called Merneptah, or it is the year 1278 BC and the Egyptian commander is called Rameses II?
The army compositions are the same, and the date is only in our minds, so let the players decide for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 30, 2017 23:11:36 GMT
Very well…let’s leave the dates unchanged. When there is a dispute over an issue, often the best solution is a compromise. And I think that allowing the I/22a New Kingdom Egyptians and the I/28 Sea Peoples to be mutual enemies does that (with the additional information that the Sea Peoples start date is disputed of course). After all, if army I/22a and army I/28 are on the table, who is to say whether it is the year 1208 BC and the Egyptian commander is called Merneptah, or it is the year 1278 BC and the Egyptian commander is called Rameses II? The army compositions are the same, and the date is only in our minds, so let the players decide for themselves. As both Sea People and Egyptian have Littoral as home terrain, maybe the land battle could not take place due to the waterway and marshes, but the attempted landings could be fought (three elements including the general). Just an idea. BTW, the Cilician Pirate army list query was a bit of humour on my part. Please do not take that request seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 31, 2017 5:58:26 GMT
BTW, the Cilician Pirate army list query was a bit of humour on my part. Please do not take that request seriously. Ha, ha…that goes for me too. Anyway, I doubt that the Sherden pirates in 1278 BC had any intention of landing ashore. After all, where is the profit and bounty from sailing for several days across the sea only to land at the foot of a walled city that you have no hope of capturing…or even worse, risk fighting a battle in which you might be killed. It is far easier, safer and more profitable to be like Captain Jack Sparrow and capture all those nice fat rich half armed merchant ships.  So if Pompey the Great wants a triumph for defeating the Mediterranean pirates in 67 BC, he’ll have to pick another set of rules. DBA is for land battles, not sea battles…or skirmishes…or sieges for that matter… |
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jun 1, 2017 5:37:40 GMT
The Mediterranean is relatively most of the time a flat sea (yes I know a big oversimplification) so easy to cross in a small ancient boat.
If you want to know what a rough sea looks like go to Dover, and look at the English Chanel there in a storm force 10.
Sardinia is a hop to Egypt by canoe in comparison.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by vonberlichingen on Dec 30, 2017 20:05:52 GMT
What about I/14f? If it can ally with I/32a and I/32c, why shouldn't they be able to ally with it?
I/32a Western Chou (1100 BC – 701 BC) change Ally from I/14a to I/14d Chinese Border Tribes (2000 BC - 401 BC)
I/32c Other Chinese (700 BC – 480 BC) change Ally from I/14a to I/14d Chinese Border Tribes (2000 BC - 401 BC)
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 30, 2017 21:28:10 GMT
What about I/14e? If it can ally with I/32a and I/32c, why shouldn't they be able to ally with it? I/32a Western Chou (1100 BC – 701 BC) change Ally from I/14a to I/14d Chinese Border Tribes (2000 BC - 401 BC) I/32c Other Chinese (700 BC – 480 BC) change Ally from I/14a to I/14d Chinese Border Tribes (2000 BC - 401 BC) I do not recall the specifics as that information lies within the pages of research dealing with book I (reference the topic thread). However, the situation is not unique as there were many other non-reciprocating alliances listed in the book.
Two nations may have joined forces for a particular campaign such as the II/80d Huns serving as allies for II/82a Patrician Rome of the West. Looking at the Hunnic list, no one served as an ally of the Huns but became their subjects.
|
|
|
|
Post by vonberlichingen on Dec 30, 2017 22:02:35 GMT
Sorry, I meant I/14f. This is my first return visit to the new Fanaticus, and I didn't start at the top of this long thread, so I hadn't been aware of the Fanaticus Forum's administrative details re. Book I vs. Book II, etc. And my comment was based more on logical consistency, and not so much on an explicit interpretation of history. Obviously, I/14a was incorrect as an ally of I/32a and I/32c. However, why should I/14d alone be correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 31, 2017 3:49:45 GMT
I must apologize to everybody (especially to timurilank) for letting this project slip and not be fully completed. My excuse?…well, I’m just lazy. In fact, I’m so lazy that I can’t even be bothered to think up a good excuse!  Vonberlichingen, until I compile the whole lot into a single finalized downloadable document (to be placed in the Fanaticus Wikipedia, very soon), the full working correction lists can be found on page 5 of this thread. (See fanaticus.boards.net/thread/603/historical-opponents?page=5 ) As for the specifics of army I/14f Red Ti Army (788 - 588 BC), I’m afraid I’m not an expert on Chinese warfare. But I can spot a proof reading error when I see one. So give me a few days and I’ll see if I can come up with some sort of definite answer. Again I apologize to everyone for being such a naughty Stevie. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 31, 2017 4:43:37 GMT
...and here is a rough working copy, without the footnotes (just to show that I am still working on it  ):- ---Later Edit: attachment deleted in order to free-up Fanaticus for more photos---Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Dec 31, 2017 8:22:50 GMT
Thanks for all your hard work Stevie, don't worry most people can let projects slip or just become distracted by day to day life...I have not lifted a paint brush in weeks as I've been too wrecked by work demands over the Christmas season.I will wish you all the Very Best for for 2018 and disapear to read the download.Cheers.😊🍻
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jan 1, 2018 14:49:56 GMT
Wow Stevie! That's an impressive piece of work. Thank for that effort. Certainly not lazy.
Jim
|
|
)
):-