Piankhi's 5^th & 6^th Campaigns

According to Breasted, commenting on the 5^th campaign of Menkheperre:

The first campaign extended no farther northward than the Tripolis of the southern Lebanon, and this was inland. The second and third campaigns were not aggressive, and apparently did not push far north; the record of the fourth campaign is lost, and it is not until the fifth, in the year 29, that we have certain information of an advance beyond the northern limits of the first campaign, and along the coast. This fifth campaign begins with a new caption, as if a new period of the wars had begun here, and it is clear that the revolt suppressed in the south in the year 23 was after six years not yet subdued in the cities of Zahi which the king had not yet visited. The wars in the Annals are thus divided into two great groups, the first group being in the south, and the second group, beginning in the year 29, being the wars in the north. BAR II 454

We have already argued that Breasted is mistaken concerning the northern extension of the 1^st campaign. We can therefore safely disregard the opening lines of his commentary. But he correctly notes the increased presence of Egypt in the north of Syria beginning in the year 610 B.C. That fact alone is significant since this increased presence is demanded by the testimony of the Chronicle and the Hebrew Bible.

It is clear from the Annals that Menkheperre, on his 5^th campaign, extended his influence at least as far north as Tunip, not far from Carchemish. Also for the first time he moved to control the coastal lands west of the Orontes, a territory known to the Egyptians as Zahi. As Breasted correctly notes, this campaign marks a distinct phase in the expansionist policy of the Egyptian king. It is interesting to observe how Piankhi pauses in the midst of his north Syrian campaign to acknowledge the role played by the god Amun, just as he had done years before in the midst of his battle with Tefnakht.

    His majesty commanded to cause that the victories which his father [Amon] had given him should be recorded upon the stone wall in the temple which his majesty made anew [for his father Amon, setting forth each expedition by its name, together with the plunder which his majesty brought therefrom. It was done according to [all the command which his father, Re, gave to him] - - -
    Year 29. Behold, [his] majesty was [in Za]hi subduing the countries revolting against him, on the fifth victorious campaign.
    Behold, his majesty captured the city of Wa - (W' -) - - -. This army offered acclamations to his majesty, giving praise to [Amon] for the victories which [he gave to] his son. They were pleasing to the heart of his majesty above everything.
    After this his majesty proceeded to the storehouse of offering[s], to give a sacrifice to Amon and to Harakhte consisting of oxen, calves, fowl, [for the life, prosperity, and health of Menkheperre, who giveth life forever.
    List of plunder taken out of this city, from the infantry of that foe of Tunip (Tw-np), the chief of this city, 1; (T-h-r-) warriors, 329, silver, 100 deben, gold, 100 deben, lapis lazuli, malachite, vessels of bronze and copper.
    Behold ships were taken - - - laden with everything, with slaves, male and female, .... everything good. Afterward his majesty proceeded southward to Egypt, to his father Amon-Re, with joy of heart. BAR II 455-460

Although line 460 of the Annals notes the departure of Piankhi for Egypt, the narrative goes on to describe the siege and capture of Arvad, another coastal city, as if Piankhi were present. Either events are out of order, or a portion of the army continued the campaign in the absence of the king. We prefer the latter interpretation. The annals are careful elsewhere to preserve the order of events - why not here?

Behold, his majesty overthrew the city of Arvad ('-r'-ty-wt), with its grain, cutting down all its pleasant trees. Behold, there were found [the products] of all Zahi. Their gardens were filled with their fruit, their wines were found remaining in their presses as water flows, their grain on the terraces [upon - -}; it was more plentiful than the sand of the shore. The army were overwhelmed with their portions.
List of tribute brought to his majesty on this expedition: 51 slaves, male and female; 30 horses; 10 flat dishes of silver; incense, oil, 470 (mn-) jars of honey, 6,428 (mn-) jars of wine, copper, lead, lapis lazuli, green felspar, 616 large cattle, 3,636 small cattle, loaves, various (jfr.t-) loaves, clean grain in kernel and ground ----. All good fruit of this country. Behold, the army of his majesty was drunk and anointed with oil every day as at a feast in Egypt. BAR II 461-462

We are encouraged to find that Piankhi's armies are in the vicinity of the Euphrates during this 5^th campaign. Tunip lies less than 100 miles from the great River, approximately 150 miles from Carchemish and therefore less than 200 miles from Harran. But there appears to be no place in the narrative in which to insert our hypothetical journey to Harran in support of Assyria. How do we harmonize the Annals and the Chronicle? The answer is not far off.

We are not informed in the annals precisely when during Piankhi's 29^th year his conquests in Upper Retenu took place. We suspect it was during the summer and early fall of the year, prior to the arrival at Harran of the combined armies of Babylon and Media. Our suspicion is confirmed by details included with the description of the overthrow of Arvad. The wine harvest has begun. Grain is more plentiful than sand on the shore. It is autumn, probably September/October. The siege of Harran began in October/November. If, as we suspect, the conquest of Arvad took place after Piankhi concluded his 5^th campaign and returned to Egypt, then he likely left Zahi several weeks before the arrival of the Median and Babylonian armies. Perhaps his departure was the signal for the combined armies to begin their siege of Harran.

The lack of any record of the humiliating retreat from Harran is disappointing, but not surprising. In the first place Piankhi was absent from the event. His 5^th campaign was officially over and he had returned to Egypt. And secondly, it was a non-event.[8] There was no battle. His troops, along with those of Ashuruballit, vacated Harran without contesting the takeover of the city. But even if the retreat were viewed as a military defeat we would not anticipate any mention of the event. Piankhi expressly stated, in the introductory lines to this section of his annals, that these inscriptions were intended to record his successes, not his losses. He declared forthrightly: "His majesty commanded to cause that the victories which his father [Amon] had given him should be recorded ". In view of this expressed intention we should expect no substantial record of any defeats. As we will see in the records for subsequent years, Piankhi was loathe to blame Amon for any losses. Other dignitaries might mention them, but not Piankhi, whose devotion to the god was obsessive.

The occupation of Harran by the Babylonian army lasted four months, extending into the following year. In the month Adar (Feb/Mar 609 B.C.) the army of Nabopolassar returned to Babylon, leaving only a garrison of troops to occupy and defend the city. It was the end of the 16^th year of Nabopolassar, the 29^th year of Menkheperre Piankhi.

The 6th Campaign

The Piankhi annals for his 6^th campaign are brief. In them we hope to find record of his attempt to assist his homeless Assyrian ally to regain his city. But we remain mindful that Piankhi does not like to publicize his losses. And at Harran he sustained a resounding defeat. This time his army actually engaged in battle. The loss could not be rationalized.

According to the Annals:

Year 30. Behold, his majesty was in the land of Retenu on the sixth victorious expedition of his majesty.
(He) arrived at the city of Kadesh (Kd-Sw), overthrew it, cut down its groves, harvested its grain. (He) came to the land of Sh-y-wt, arrived at the city of Simyra (S'-my-r'), arrived at the city of Arvad ('-r'-t-wt), doing likewise to it.
List of the tribute brought to the souls of his majesty by the chiefs of Retenu in this year.
Behold, the children of the chiefs (and) their brothers were brought to be in strongholds in Egypt. Now, whosoever died among these chiefs, his majesty would cause his son to stand in his place. List of the children of chiefs brought in this year: (x+)2 persons; 181 slaves, male and female; 188 horses; 40 chariots, wrought with gold and silver (and) painted. BAR II 464-67

As we read this description of the 6^th campaign we are encouraged to find Piankhi in the vicinity of Kadesh, precisely where he had to be if the Jewish scribes have correctly recorded the sequence of events (Riblah lies about 8 miles south of Kadesh). But where is the reference to a battle with the Medes and the Babylonians in the vicinity of Harran? Even if Piankhi has deliberately ignored the humiliating defeat, there appears to be no room in his military timetable in which to insert a trans-Euphrates battle? In fact, the sequence of military actions seems to be moving from central Syria toward the Mediterranean coast, not eastward toward the Euphrates. What is the explanation? The answer to our dilemma can be found in a closer examination of the text of the Annals.

The counter-siege of Harran took place in the summer. Early in July Neco was on the move to assist Assyria. The combined Egyptian and Assyrian armies surrounded Harran from the month Tammuz (June/July) to the month Elul (Aug/Sept) at which time Nabopolassar responded, sending the main force of the Babylonian army. The Assyrian/Egyptian coalition abandoned their assault. The details thus far are supplied by the text of the Chronicle. At this point the Annals appear to take up the story. Following his loss at Harran Piankhi apparently retreated to the relative safety of Upper Retenu, where he was obliged to put down a rebellion initiated by his nemesis, the prince of Kadesh. In this endeavor he was successful, and Piankhi, accordingly, begins the Annals for his 6^th campaign at this point. When viewed in this light we understand why the action begins in central Syria, moves to Simyra and Arvad on the Mediterranean coast, and then back to Egypt.

The Annals, read carelessly, have left scholars with the impression that Piankhi's 6^th campaign began with the siege of Kadesh. But the Annals themselves inform us that this is not true. The siege of Kadesh took place in the fall. The groves are ripe; the grain is ready for harvest. Piankhi's campaigns typically began in the spring. Where was Piankhi during the summer of 609 B.C.? We know the answer, even if the Egyptian king is reluctant to acknowledge the fact.

Breasted was not the first to misinterpret the Annals for the 6^th campaign, but he is representative. For the record we reproduce his comments:

This year the expedition went by water and landed at Simyra, the most convenient port for reaching Kadesh. This city had been the leader in the great coalition of revolters, defeated at Megiddo in the first campaign seven years before. It was doubtless also constantly supporting revolt in the Phoenician coast cities, as Tunip had done in the preceding year (29) causing the king to direct his forces thither in that year. Finally in the year 30 the king succeeded in reaching the source of the disturbance, capturing and severely punishing Kadesh, a feat in which Amenemheb assisted. He returned to his fleet at Simyra, proceeded to Arvad and punished it as in the preceding year. On his return to Egypt he took with him the children of the native princes to be educated in friendship toward Egypt, that they might be sent back gradually to replace the old hostile generation of Syrian princes. BAR II 463 (italics mine)

Breasted has totally missed the point when he states that Menkheperre and his army arrived at Simyra by ship. There is absolutely no basis for this claim, nor for the underlying assumption that the Egyptian king possessed a fleet of ships of sufficient size and number to transport an army. But the famed Egyptologist was hard pressed to explain why the annals begin with the Egyptian army on the outskirts of Kadesh and the city in rebellion. Without the historical context which guides our thinking we might have made the same mistake.

By placing the 30^th year of Menkheperre in its proper late 7^th century context we can also improve on Breasted's remarks concerning the rebellion at Kadesh, by supplying the cause. Piankhi has just engaged in a losing battle at Harran. His nemesis, the prince of Kadesh, has apparently misinterpreted Piankhi's withdrawal from the region as a sign of weakness, and has chosen the moment to challenge Egyptian authority. This was a mistake. Piankhi had no resolve to risk his army defending a foreigner, albeit an ally, in a losing cause. But he was not weak. And he had no intentions of loosening his hold on Syria.

Our comments thus far are not mere speculation. There is inscriptional evidence supporting our interpretation of the sequence of events, namely, that Menkheperre's battle with Kadesh came on the heels of an encounter with the enemy across the Euphrates near Carchemish. Piankhi might not record his defeats, but several of his officers are not so reticent. And as Breasted indicates in remarks quoted above, one of them, named Amenemheb, who assisted Menkheperre on this 6^th campaign, lived to tell the tale.