Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Shang Dynasty China vs. the Egyptian New Kingdom


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 somechineseperson

somechineseperson

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 1,650 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Languages spoken:Mandarin Chinese, English
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Mainland Chinese)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Philosophy
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Philosophy, Marxism, Religious Philosophy (including Buddhism and Christianity), Chinese History, General World History, History and Philosophy of Science

Posted 23 February 2006 - 10:41 PM

Following in the "tradition" of the "Rome vs. Han" threads, let's suppose there is a war between the 18th dynasty of the Ancient Egyptian New Kingdom versus the Shang Dynasty of China, which roughly took place say around 1400 BC, who do you think would have a better chance of winning?

Some basic facts about the Shang Dynasty military:

Armour: bamboo body armour + bronze helmet
Weapons: spears and axes, also the characteristic Chinese weapon ge, composite bow, chariots drawn by two horses
Army size: for a large battle tens of thousands of men can be mobilised
Total population: around six million?

I am quite ignorant about Ancient Egypt, so someone will have to fill me in here.

What do you think?

Map of Shang Dynasty:

Posted Image

Picture of Shang Dynasty warrior:

Posted Image

Map of Egyptian New Kingdom:

Posted Image

Ancient Egyptian warrior:

Posted Image

Edited by somechineseperson, 23 February 2006 - 11:13 PM.


#2 DaMo

DaMo

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Super Moderator
  • 1,755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dubai
  • Interests:History, Philosophy, Law, Political Science, InfoTech
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Prehistory, Early Imperial, Samguk

Posted 24 February 2006 - 04:22 AM

May I suggest an equally imposing picture for the Egyptian side?

Posted Image
"If an archeologist calls something a finial, he usually he has no idea what it is"
"We Vandals get blamed for stuff that was actually done by some errant Lombard or Visigoth"
"Nationalism is much about forgetting as it is about remembering"

China historical vacation 2011 photos and videos: http://www.chinahist...na-trip-photos/

#3 Wujiang

Wujiang

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Visiting Scholar
  • 2,046 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Art of War
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Ancient Chinese Military, Weapons Science, Martial Arts, Daoist and Buddhist Psychology, Mythology & Ancient Chinese philosophy

Posted 24 February 2006 - 01:23 PM

shouldn't this be in the Art of War forum ?
包容天下之心,明明仁義之念,開天闢地之志

#4 Borjigin Ayurbarwada

Borjigin Ayurbarwada

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 4,010 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese History, Chinese Military History, Qing dynasty history

Posted 24 February 2006 - 04:10 PM

Population estimate for the kingdoms at this time is virtually impossible, although the typical estimation for Egypt is around 3.5-5 million. The Shang had around 6 million. But Bei Jing Zhong Guan Cun estimates that by the end of Shang there might have been as much as 10 million. The Chinese lead in population is again, probably because that the main food crop is millet, while for Egypt it was wheat and barley. But Egypt is more centralized in absolute terms. But taking population estimate aside. The size of the Egyptian army and that of Shang is comparable(which probably mean that their population isn’t too much different), both capable of fielding up to several ten thousand strong. Which is far larger than the typical Hittie and Mitanni armies (the two other great power of the period). Weni, a commander in the army of the sixth dynasty recorded his army tens of thousand strong. Pharaoh Thutmosis III was able to move more than 20,000 men 300 miles at Megiddo. In the battle of Kadesh in 1275 b.c., Pharaoh Rameses II fielded between 25,000-30,000 men. But this was not the maximum that Egypt can field. It can probably triple that amount in time of national emergency. The typical Egyptian field army however, composed of five Pedjets of around 6,500 men. Similarily, the oracle bones mention Shang armies of mostly 3,000-5,000, but occasionally up to 40,000. Zhou Xin’s campaign against the Dong Hu around 1077 had at least 10,000 men. Classical account mentions that Wu Wang deployed 300 chariots and 45,000 men against Zhou Xin's 170,000 army!(Shi Ji even bloat the number to 700,000) Of course, that number is probably exaggerated, but nevertheless, in time of national emergency, Shang can probably also field up to 100,000 by the time of emperor Wu Ding.


The organization of the two armies is also comparable in complexity and maneuver. In fact they all seem to be somewhat based off of divisions of five. Egyptian infantry was organized into 50 man platoons commanded by a "leader of fifty". 5 platoons make up a Sa, or company plus a commander, quartermaster, and scribe, and was identified as being comprised of recruits, tarined men, or elite shock. The next unit in the chain of command was the regiment commanded by a "standard bearer" although the size is not known. Above that is the Pedjets of 1,000 men each, commanded by a "captain of the troop". A typical Egyptian field division was organized into 5 Pedjets of 3 heavy infantry brigades, and 2 archer brigades. Each Pedjets is also accompanied by a chariot task force of around 500 chariots, making a total field army about 6,500 in size. The heavy infantry had axemen, archers, clubmen, and spearmen in the army. The latter carried shields and six foot long spears. They are used to protect against and disrupt hostile charges aimed at chariot units. The most disciplined of the infantry were the Nakhtu-aa, armed with bull hide shield and short spears as well as the cast bronze penetration axe as well as dagger. The heavy infantries, like almost anywhere in the world, is the decisive arm and faught in phalanxes of 5 men deep and 10 men front in a 50 men platoon. While the archers are called Megau, carrying 1.3 meter composite bows. Egyptians used the oxcart as a logistical transport.
By the new kingdom, the army got rid of the old kingdom style of local militia, reorganized its structures and became a national force based on conscription. Like the Shang dynasty, Egyptian army had a core of professional military caste. Military families were given grants of land to hold for as long as they provided a son for the officer corps.(although Shang's top military belong to the noble, the rest were peasants.)

The very structure of the Shang society is based on war, with the basic social unit known as the Zu. The clan consisted of about a hundred families that lived in a small walled town and fielded a military unit consisting of 1 man from each family. Shang society was composed primarily of numerous peasant communities, dominated by a strong noble class and headed by a well-organized monarchy. The royal capital was more complex version of the clan town and was protected by rammed earth walls and a standing army supplemented by some of th esoldier citizens of Zu. In time of war, the rest of the clan fighting men of the capital. Shang logistics are unkown but it is probably complex because of its ability to deploy large armies into far away lands. The regular army was the Lu with titles such as “garrison commandant,” “frontier commandant,” “archer commandant” “horse commandant” and “dog attendant”. The basic unit of the Shang, like that of Zhou, is in squads of five called the Wu, they make up a 100 man infantry company called Zu, each Zu is accompanied by a chariot squad(wu) of 5 making up a chariot combat force called chariot Zu, five of that makes up a Lu, and in a typical field army, it was divided into three parts(hence the name San Jun for the entire field army probably dates back to Shang), right, center and left.(known as upper, center and lower.)
In battle, the basic 100-man Zu formed a 10x10 phalanx, The front row probably carries the Ge. The second and third row behind him carries a 4-5 feet spear poking over his shoulder, forming a solid hedge-row of spear-points. The rows behind them carried swords, maces, and axes, ready for close-in fighting once the enemy line has been broken, and also included rows of archers, who laid down showers of arrows overhead on the enemy. These soldiers also carried a bronze dagger. The chariots are deployed in rows behind the phalanx, serving cavalry-like roles, exploiting break-throughs, protecting the flanks of the phalanx, or attacking enemy flanks. Each chariot is drawn by 2 horses and carry three riders, the driver in the middle, the archer to the left, and the spearman or halberdier to the right.

Comparitively, the armament and organization of the two armies are similar, both used spears, daggers, battle axe and composite bows.
However, unlike the Shang, Egyptians usually deployed chariot units to act as screen for infantry and to cover their maneuver during a movement to contact. The chariots with composite bows start firing enemy at a distance by closing in with them and deploying them ahead of the infantry(used much like the light horse skirmishers in the Liao army of later times). Once the enemy was close, the chariots and archer retire into the main infantry ranks or to the flanks and continue to fire into the enemy. If the enemy gave ground, the chariot exploits the vulnerable points of the enemy. The Shang chariot’s role in tactic is very vague. But given its size, it might have performed a tactic similar to the Hitties in Kadesh. The chariot might have been the primary arm. The chariot was to close in rapidly with the infantry, delivering maximum shock to their formation in open terrain using the sheer weight of the vehicle to shatter them. That’s perhaps the reason why Shang chariots are significantly heavier than Egyptian ones. It was capable of carrying a passenger of 3 where the Egyptian can only carry two. Egyptian chariots however, might have been faster due to their lighter design. But Shang chariots is perhaps in general superior in combat(at least compared to the Hitties, whose chariots were more or less the same standard as the Egyptians in different terrain). The excavated Shang chariot in AnYang measured 135 cm by 85 cm, with a wheen exceeding 135 cm the Egyptian chariot found in the tomb of Tutankhamun only carried two passengers and measured 100 cm by 50 cm with a wheel measuring 95 cm. Shang chariots had the most advanced wheels in any army of the day. It had dishing, or a plate shaped wheel with the rim protruding outward rather than a flat cone typical of other civilizations. Such wheels give extra strength against sideway thrusts occasioned by uneven or rutted terrains, as well as a greater flexibility in turning. On occasion, these “cake wheels” were strengthened by a pair of struts running from the rim to rim on each side of the hub, giving even greater strength to the wheels. Furthermore, Shang wheels had 18 spokes while most Middle Eastern and Egyptian chariots had at most 6. Shang chariot also had a different tactic, unlike the Middle Eastern shock chariots; Shang chariots used a seven-foot shaft Ge instead of the spear. The Ge has a better coverage in battle than the spear and could knock out the opposing charioteer in a showdown. The abundance of Ge might have been due to the sophisticated Shang Bronze technology.

In conclusion, Egypt is probably stronger during the early phase of the New Kingdom, especially during the powerful 18th dynasty under the reign of the warrior pharaoh Thutmosis III. He conquered all the way up to Syria. But by the time of Thutmosis IV. Shang entered a new era of power under Tai Jia in the end of the 15th century b.c. The two power are probably comparable. But by the reign of WuDing towards the end of the 13th century b.c., Shang is probably in the lead because Egypt has just suffered invasion from the Sea people, and its internal politics are also instable. It has lost whatever possession it had of Palestine and Syria. Its also at this time, that Shang chariot warfare reached its height, and extended to its maximum territory.

Edited by warhead, 24 February 2006 - 04:13 PM.


#5 somechineseperson

somechineseperson

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 1,650 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Languages spoken:Mandarin Chinese, English
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Mainland Chinese)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Philosophy
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Philosophy, Marxism, Religious Philosophy (including Buddhism and Christianity), Chinese History, General World History, History and Philosophy of Science

Posted 24 February 2006 - 09:13 PM

Hey warhead,

We disagree a lot regarding religion, and I still get annoyed by a lot of your comments, your view of Chinese religion is simply too biased and limited. However, when it comes to military history, I must admit you are quite an expert. I've got to give credit where it is due.

But just to nitpick here:

Which is far larger than the typical Hittie and Mitanni armies (the two other great power of the period).


They were certainly not the only other powers during this time period. How about the Mycenaean Greeks, the Hebrew peoples of the Levant, the Indo-Aryans of India, and the Olmecs of Mexico?

In battle, the basic 100-man Zu formed a 10x10 phalanx, The front row probably carries the Ge. The second and third row behind him carries a 4-5 feet spear poking over his shoulder, forming a solid hedge-row of spear-points. The rows behind them carried swords, maces, and axes, ready for close-in fighting once the enemy line has been broken, and also included rows of archers, who laid down showers of arrows overhead on the enemy.


I don't think Chinese armies had swords before the Spring and Autumn Period. The Shang soldiers probably only had short daggers.

#6 Yun

Yun

    Sage-King

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 9,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore/USA
  • Interests:Ancient Chinese history, with a focus on the Age of Fragmentation. Chinese ethnicities, religion, philosophy, music, and art and material culture. Military history in general.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Three Kingdoms, Age of Fragmentation, Sui-Tang

Posted 24 February 2006 - 11:51 PM

Did the Shang use rhinoceros-hide armour?

Did the Egyptians use much body armour at all?

Where would the battle take place: in the Shang domain, in Egypt, or somewhere in between? This is important for terrain considerations.
The dead have passed beyond our power to honour or dishonour them, but not beyond our ability to try and understand.

#7 urofpersia

urofpersia

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 3,174 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth - Sol System
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 25 February 2006 - 02:18 AM

Did the Egyptians use much body armour at all?


Because of the climate, armour is not favoured.

Most would have gone bare-bodied (upper) and some would have hardened linen protector down the front protecting the vulnerable crotch area. Most would not even have headgear.

Some officers or special troops may wear straps of leather or hardened linen on their upper-body for protection

Large shields were also used, typically made of wood with leather covering. The shields were heavy and awkward and not every troop carried them.

During the NKE era, bowmen formed an important part of the army. As much as 50% of the army can be archers. Their bows are well-constructed with long range.

Hand weapons, they used axes, scimitars (Khepesh), daggers, spears.

The NKE were famous for their light 2-horsed war chariots. each chariot was so light, a man wilth some effort could lift it all by himself. Massed chariots were used as mobile missile platforms and together with the range of their bows they could rain arrows on their enemies and then pull back as necessary. Each chariot typically carried 2-3 men, one being a dedicated charioteer, the other an archer. The quivers are typically attached to the chariot body itself. It use to be commonly suppose that there were chariot runners (infantry on foot who followed the chariots) but this has since been disputed and there is little evidence for it.
Ur of Persia

#8 DaMo

DaMo

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Super Moderator
  • 1,755 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dubai
  • Interests:History, Philosophy, Law, Political Science, InfoTech
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Prehistory, Early Imperial, Samguk

Posted 25 February 2006 - 03:57 AM

Hey warhead,

...

I don't think Chinese armies had swords before the Spring and Autumn Period. The Shang soldiers probably only had short daggers.

Mainly, but sword were making their appearance well before the S&A period.
An over-3000-year-old bronze sword was discovered in Henan (Later Shang period)
"If an archeologist calls something a finial, he usually he has no idea what it is"
"We Vandals get blamed for stuff that was actually done by some errant Lombard or Visigoth"
"Nationalism is much about forgetting as it is about remembering"

China historical vacation 2011 photos and videos: http://www.chinahist...na-trip-photos/

#9 浪淘音

浪淘音

    State Undersecretary (Shangshu Lang 尚书郎)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 628 posts

Posted 25 February 2006 - 01:33 PM

Shang era has recurve bows (oldest pictorial evidence of recurved bows though no actual specimen survives)

Egyptian bows by this time had a composite construction IE more than one material but the limbs were not recurved/reflexed (i think)

Shang era recurve bows are also theorized to be constructed with average draw weights well over 100 pounds

based on

1. Shang Chinese were known to hunt Rhinos. no way in hell you're hurting a rhino with a 60 pound draw even if you shower it with 50 arrows
2. in this era of time, recurve bows were relatively new technology meaning the material mechanics would still have tendencies of more primite bows IE the longer the bow, the heavier the weight. Shang bows were known to be very long. (as time progressed and technology improved, you could make a short recurve bow no bigger than 45 inches strung that can draw incredible amounts of weight)

#10 Borjigin Ayurbarwada

Borjigin Ayurbarwada

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 4,010 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese History, Chinese Military History, Qing dynasty history

Posted 26 February 2006 - 04:31 PM

They were certainly not the only other powers during this time period. How about the Mycenaean Greeks, the Hebrew peoples of the Levant, the Indo-Aryans of India, and the Olmecs of Mexico?

Maybe I should have said it clear, they are the next two great powers, the other been the Kassites of Southern Babylon and south western Persia.
As for the rest of the states you brought up, they are hardly great powers by any stretch of the imagination. Assyria at this time is not hardly comparible to either, they were subjugated by the Mitanni in the 15th century B.C. The Mitanni sacked Ashur and made Assyria a vassal. Assyria paid tribute to Hanilgalbat until Mitanni power collapsed from Hittite pressure. Myceaneans never had a united single state that stretched a large span of territory. Even if you were to believe in the legend of the Trojan wars, that was the greatest accomplishment of the alliance. Yet by 1100 BC, they abandoned their cities and were pressured by the Dorians. The hebrews are just wild tribes that does not even constitute a united state. Furthermore they never grasped the art of chariot until Solomon's time. During Joshua, records mention that they burned captured enemy chariots, showing their inability to utilize these booties. The tribes of Isralites aren't united until Saul and even then they are a miniscule power compared to the Zhou. The Indo-Aryans are likewise disunited, during the Newkingdom period, they are little more than semi-nomadic tribes, only around 12th century b.c. during the Vedic age was there any settled state to speak of. Kuru and Panchala were the first to form any large united structures. And they only reside over a small portion of Northern India with perhaps no more than a few cities. Later on there were numerous kingdoms such as the Kasis, Kosalas, Kurus, Panchalas, and Videhas, but even the Southern Dravidian are hardly subjugated. The Olmecs do not possess either bronze or the chariot. Their combat efficiency is primitive compared to those of the Old world.

I don't think Chinese armies had swords before the Spring and Autumn Period. The Shang soldiers probably only had short daggers.


Depends what you call a sword, daggers of several inch in this case, did make their appearance


We disagree a lot regarding religion, and I still get annoyed by a lot of your comments, your view of Chinese religion is simply too biased and limited. However, when it comes to military history, I must admit you are quite an expert. I've got to give credit where it is due.


Likewise, Somechineseperson, since, as has been said, thought is deeper than all speech, and feeling deeper than all thought, emotion and motivates, fields will be won only by those who believe in the winning. Descartes wrote, “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, a far as possible, all things.” So long live the spirit of contradiction. And keep an open mind to other beliefs.

Edited by warhead, 26 February 2006 - 10:46 PM.


#11 Borjigin Ayurbarwada

Borjigin Ayurbarwada

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 4,010 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese History, Chinese Military History, Qing dynasty history

Posted 26 February 2006 - 04:46 PM

Egyptian bows by this time had a composite construction IE more than one material but the limbs were not recurved/reflexed (i think)


They had one recurve. But its hardly a sign of inferiority, since most middle eastern armies also had 2.
However, Shang composite bows are the largest bows of that time.

#12 Kenneth

Kenneth

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 1,491 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Ancient Chinese Arsenals
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Ancient Weapons. Artefact studies.

Posted 26 February 2006 - 09:40 PM

Mainly, but sword were making their appearance well before the S&A period.
An over-3000-year-old bronze sword was discovered in Henan (Later Shang period)

The Shang have weapons we could at a stretch call 'swords' but typically most authors put true swords in the East Zhou period. The earlier examples are typically more like ornate versions of the nomads utility knives, and even in West Zhou the 'swords' were only around 30cm long and called 'cosmpolitan' weapons by academia. More like a dagger really, double edged or not. The peoples daily often makes a poor account of discoveries. Some authors call the West Zhou stlye 'crude', and this is not unfair in terms of a weapon even if it is beautiful. Such decorated Shang knives were said to belong to 'charioteers' in one case (no doubt discovered with a chariot).
In the East ZHou the sword becomes a real weapon of the battlefield. More commonly sword histories have the Shang-era just as a footnote of pre-cursor.
One author puts it (bearing in mind the precise definition of a sword is not as clear as it appears) that only in the East Zhou do true swords appear that are useful for cutting & thrusting. I tend to agree with this. (and with the appearance of iron/steel the effectiveness of swords is increased)
Look at a 20-30cm weapons of the period of West Zhou or earlier and to call it a sword seems difficult.
One weapon of the Shang that does seem more like a chopping weapon is displayed at Shanghai museum, called a daodao, it is still small but single edged and more like a hand cleaver. It clearly is a weapon.
The knives (swords) carried by Shang charioteers are ornate and decorative & small, which is not consistent with battlefield use. Just like all the complex bronze fittings of Shang chariots when compared to simpler West Han chariots the Shang put in a lot of effort over the appearance of chariots, with made them more expensive, flash & cool...but didnt make them more effective. They are about displays of power.
If you see pictures of Shang weapon examples they are not a weapon carried by typical troops as such but more likely just for the 'cosmopolitan' use or mundane purposes as a horseman of the steppes might carry the more plain versions (see 'Ordos' knives to seem the influence this form had on Chinese...even leading to the so-called East Zhou 'sword/knife money)..
For a description of Shang weapons I would suggest Yang Hong, since museum displays of the ornate weapons do not tell a real story. Long hafted weapons, spears & dagger-axe and occasionally 2 joined as 'ji' were used. It is reasonable to assume body armour was rare and even the appearance of shields is not know since only metal fixtures have survived. The early Shang dagger-axes seem to be influenced both by the ritual tablets 'kuei' & agricultural implements.
Arrowheads of bone were still very common in the early bronze age, and large numbers were recovered from Fu Hao's tomb.
Climb over the Great Firewall.
http://www3.youtube....h?v=tzax4KkQ4ug

Posted Image

#13 浪淘音

浪淘音

    State Undersecretary (Shangshu Lang 尚书郎)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 628 posts

Posted 02 March 2006 - 10:15 PM

They had one recurve. But its hardly a sign of inferiority, since most middle eastern armies also had 2.
However, Shang composite bows are the largest bows of that time.




i never knew egyptians had recurves. when a bow deteroriates over time, the limbs start to look reflexed, it doesn't mean they are actual recurve bows

#14 somechineseperson

somechineseperson

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 1,650 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Languages spoken:Mandarin Chinese, English
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:Han Chinese (Mainland Chinese)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Philosophy
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Philosophy, Marxism, Religious Philosophy (including Buddhism and Christianity), Chinese History, General World History, History and Philosophy of Science

Posted 03 March 2006 - 01:46 AM

Some authors call the West Zhou stlye 'crude', and this is not unfair in terms of a weapon even if it is beautiful. Such decorated Shang knives were said to belong to 'charioteers' in one case (no doubt discovered with a chariot).


To call it "crude" and "beautiful" at the same time is a logical contradiction.

Arrowheads of bone were still very common in the early bronze age, and large numbers were recovered from Fu Hao's tomb.


As long as they have an effect it is ok. Most soldiers in civilisations during this time period didn't really have armour so even a bone arrowhead could be effective.

#15 Tibet Libre

Tibet Libre

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 1,324 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 03 March 2006 - 06:09 PM

The Old and Middle Kingdom were the most peaceful place on earth one can imagine. Egypt hardly had an army, rather police troops for the few unruly Bedouins, so any attacker carrying by chance a weapon or two might have had success.

The New Kingdom, though, was an entirely different matter. Imperialistic, militaristic and led by capable Pharao-Generals, it would have been too much to handle.

But the really amazing thing is how Egypt remained so peaceful and anti-imperialistic for so long. For me, a true sign that the state is no Leviathan, no military machine by nature, but rather was instrumentalised as such in the course of history.

Edited by Tibet Libre, 03 March 2006 - 06:10 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users