The Pharaoh acted as monarch and head of state on a fairly hands on level, dealing with the higher levels of state policy, diplomacy, military pursuits and as you rightly surmised, religious matters.
The Amarna Letters which were preserved on their clay tablets reveal the diplomatic side of the Pharaoh’s correspondence with other Great Kings in the Near East, like the Babylonian kings, many of whom sent daughters or sisters to be wed to the Pharaoh to bind their families and demonstrate their closeness. This was a large part of why the Pharaoh would take multiple wives but they seem to have not been particularly interested in reciprocating as they did not agree with the idea that they were the equals of any other king. Some of the letters from the Babylonian kings are complaining that they have not been sent any princesses in return despite the gifts and amicable words that they have exchanged (roughly a milennia later, Herodotus would attribute Cambysses II’s decision to go to war with Egypt partly to the Pharaoh’s unwillingness to give him his daughter in marriage). More frequently, the letters come from vassal kings and rulers of city states in the region. Some of these take the form of requests for aid in the form of gold or military support for raids or neighbouring powers that are threatening them. Others complain that they are being ignored or mistreated by the Pharaoh or his subordinates. Maybe inadequate protection, unfair treatment or harsh taxation for themselves or for traders from their kingdom.
Although we could already infer this aspect of Pharaonic rule, the Amarna letters show us a more intimate portrait of the diplomatic maneuverings between not just major players in international politics but also the smaller suboordinates, vassal kings, city-state rulers (somewhat analagous to mayors), and Egyptian officials. Pharaonic rule was far from consistent throughout Egypt’s 3,000 year history, although a strong centralized royal power emerged in the first few dynasties, over time local and regional elites began to accrue more administrative and political power as a result of destabilisation and decentralisation of power in the Intermediate Period, after which came an increase of centralisation and the renegotiation of power between the crown and various parties and institutions within the government. On the one hand, regional elites handled distribution of grain and valuable commodities, namely the temple administrations, but royal administration also handled the organisation of plantings, harvests and distribution and importation of things like commodities and precious metals (such as talents of gold and silver used in large transactions). Legislation and policy on the highest levels was issued from the Pharaoh, and matters pertaining to international diplomacy was similarly conferred to him.
The Pharaoh is also depicted as a vigorous military leader, often shown literally smiting his enemies or humiliating them in combat in violent scenes such as the famous scene of Thutmosis III (sometimes nicknamed Egypt’s Napoleon by Egyptologists) smiting Asiatic enemies on this pylon in the temple of Karnak. The Pharaoh smiting his enemies was one of the most popular motifs . Rulers like Thutmoses III lead troops on effective campaigns and defeated their neighbours to conquer new lands and acquire plunder. The Kamose Stela expresses the frustration of Pharaoh Kamose at the Hyksos occupation of Lower Egypt, his predecessor Seqenenre had led campaigns against the Hyksos before his own demise but Lower Egypt remained in their hands. The stela takes the form of Kamose’s speech to his council:
A thief is in the north, another down in Nubia, And here I sit between an Asiatic and a Nubian, Each man has his slice of Egypt and the land is partitioned, No man can pass through it as far from the south as to the north, No man can be at ease when they are milked by the taxes of the Asiatics, I shall grapple with him that I might crush his belly! For my goal is to rescue Egypt that the Asiatics have destroyed
On the other hand, assuming that every Pharaoh was a great conqueror or that they lived up to the propaganda assigned to them would be a mistake, and many Pharaohs chose to take little to no part in this aspect of their duties (some never had a chance, coming to the throne at an early age and perhaps never reaching maturity). But the important thing about all of the propaganda is that it tells us what was expected of an ideal Pharaoh and what the Pharaoh might have wanted his subjects to think of him and posterity to remember him as.
Ramesses II for instance is considered a vigorous and successful ruler who took back extensive territories from the Hittites and whose reign saw the construction of many great works. However he was defeated or at least beaten to a stalemate at the Battle of Kadesh after which a treaty between the Hittites and Egyptians was formed partly to protect both powers from the growing Mittani threat but this battle was still claimed by Ramesses as a great victory over the Hittites so we can see where even the most ardent overachievers saw the need for embellishment and symbolic victory.
As semi-divine ruler, they acted as intermediary between the Egyptian people and the gods. The divine right of the Pharaoh to rule in the unbroken spiritual succession and reincarnation was one of the binding and basic ways ma’at was upheld. Through his prayers and offerings the Pharaoh represented the people to the gods as well as representing the gods on earth as their chosen ruler, for this reason the need for a Pharaoh is deeply ingrained into Egyptian ideology and organised cultic practice. In sacrificial and offering scenes the Pharaoh, not priesthoods, is shown standing before the principal deities offering to them further demonstrating his direct relationship to them.
The Pharaoh personified both Osiris in his death and mummification and Horus in his succession to the throne. The Pharaoh also represented and brought fertility to the land through the annual inundation of the Nile and the planting and harvesting of crops that was so vital to Egyptian society. This is reinforced by the Pharaoh’s association with Osiris whose death and mummification represented the rebirth and regrowth around the Nile.
Whether the Pharaoh always lived up to this standard is another matter. Insurrections, palace coups, and assassinations were a part of the political landscape in a system that saw its share of unpopular or ineffective rulers crowned. Like any hereditary monarchy, particularly in ancient states it is important to recognize that a tentative but crucial balance had to be negotiated between the theoretical and symbolic rights and prowess of the king, and the practical necessities of state. It is also true that some Pharaohs were more capable than others, and the overall power that they held in relation to regional elites or their actual direct involvement in decision-making was far from consistent. That said, this is really true of many ancient kingships, the presence of indolent or inept Pharaohs did not completely dissolve the perception that a monarchy was needed.
To make sense of the ideology surrounding the Pharaoh it might be necessary to turn the clock back to Egypt’s cradle in the Early Dynastic period and to focus especially on the Egyptian legendary tradition of their own origins.
The persistent story that we see mentioned in inscriptions and passed down through histories such as that written by Manetho writing from shortly after the Macedonian conquest is that Egypt was in its early days torn apart by wars between competing warlords in the north (Lower Egypt) and the south (Upper and Middle Egypt) until King Narmer defeated his enemies and unified the people becoming the first Pharaoh and “Ruler of the Two Lands” which would become one of the iconic epithets of the Pharaoh. In the famous Narmer Palette we can again see the martial side of the Pharaoh who stands arm raised to smite his enemy.
The traditional red and white double crown represents this unification. We can see this representation of the Pharaoh as a unifying force in Kamose’s exclamation, and in Pharaonic ideology as a whole. From the very beginning of Dynastic ideology the Pharaoh was linked to maintaining balance and order from the societal network to the very fertility of the land. On a practical level the Pharaoh fulfilled the role of being the supreme decision-making authority, and the head of government which allowed for Egypt to develop a complex administration over time that became increasingly compartmentalised.
Leave a Reply