The annals of Piankhi, alias Menkheperre, have been widely publicized and extensively analyzed since the days of Lepsius. The Egyptologist James Henry Breasted, whose influential five volume publication of the Ancient Records of Egypt provided the translation of the Piankhi stela used earlier (BAR IV) also contains a translation and discussion of the Annals (BAR II 391-540). His initial remarks serve as an appropriate introduction to the inscription.

This document, containing no less than 223 lines, is the longest and most important historical inscription in Egypt, and forms the most complete account of the military achievements of any Egyptian king. It demonstrates the injustice of the criticism that the Egyptians were incapable of giving a clear and succinct account of a military campaign, for it shows plainly that at least in this reign careful, systematic records were made and preserved in the royal archives, giving a detailed account of each invasion in language indicating the strategic operations of the army in each of its many campaigns. BAR II 391

        The annals, according to Breasted, "are in a very bad state of preservation, the upper courses having mostly disappeared, and with them the upper parts of the vertical lines of the inscription." [9] They are composed in sections corresponding to the separate campaigns of the king, and the numbering of each confirms the fact that Menkheperre undertook seventeen distinct campaigns, the last taking place in his 41st year. Most, but not all of these, are documented sequentially on the walls surrounding the sanctuary of the god Amun. Though several sections are so badly preserved as to be unreadable, sufficient is preserved to serve our purposes.

        The period under review, the years 22-28 of Piankhi, encompasses the first four campaigns, but only the first two are documented in the shrine inscription. The third was inscribed elsewhere in the Amun temple and the fourth, covering years 26-28 of Piankhi (the time of the fall of Nineveh), is lost. Assuming it was recorded at all (there being some suspicion it was not) it was likely also inscribed elsewhere in the temple, where it was subsequently destroyed. The descriptions of the first three campaigns are translated by Breasted in sections 408-453 of his Ancient Records. The first, and arguably the most significant of these, that which occupied the king's 22nd and 23rd years, is preserved almost intact.
 

The First Campaign

        According to Breasted, the initial and by all accounts the most important of Menkheperre's campaigns in Asia, is also the most fully documented.. It begins with a description of one of the most famous military encounters of antiquity, known to historians as the "Battle of Megiddo".

        Late in his 22nd year the king set out from Tharu on the eastern border of Egypt with intent to conquer domains stretching from Judea to the Euphrates. He had not traveled far before encountering a coalition of Syrian kings - "practically all Syria" to used Breasted's phraseology - assembled against him at the site of ancient Megiddo, near the Jezreel valley in Palestine. Apparently they had gathered specifically to oppose his northward advance. At the end of the ten day trek from Tharu to Gaza, en route to Megiddo, the king celebrated an anniversary of his coronation, and events are thereafter ascribed to his 23rd year. But the Julian year remains unchanged. It is the spring of 616 B.C.

Year 22, fourth month of the second season (eighth month), on the twenty-fifth day [his majesty was in] Tharu on the first victorious expedition to [extend] the boundaries of Egypt with might ----- . Now, (at) that period [the Asiatics had fallen into] disagreement, each man [fighting] against [his neighbor] -----. Now, it happened that the tribes ---- ---- the people, who were there in the city of Sharuhen; behold, from Yeraza to the marshes of the earth, (they) had begun to revolt against his majesty.
Year 23, first (month) of the third season (ninth month), on the fourth day, the day of the feast of the king's coronation, (he arrived) at the city, the possession of the ruler, Gaza. [Year 23] first month of the third season (ninth month), on the fifth day; departure from this place in might, -- -- in power, and in triumph, to overthrow that wretched foe, to extend the boundaries of Egypt, according as his fathe, Amon-Re, [had commanded -- -- ] that he seize. Year 23, first month of the third season (ninth month), on the sixteenth day, (he arrived) at the city of Yehem. BAR II 415-419

        The Annals at this point begin to tell the story of the Megiddo battle, a narrative which occupies almost the whole of the balance of the space dedicated to the first campaign. The battle occurs in two stages, beginning with open warfare between the two sides in the near vicinity of Megiddo, but outside its fortified walls. This stage of the assault began on the 21st day of the ninth month, only five days after the army departed Yehem. It lasted only a few days. Piankhi was victorious, but his armies, as they had during the course of the Tefnakht rebellion, failed to capitalize on the advantage. Rather than pursue the Syrians in flight, they scrambled to seize material goods abandoned on the battlefield. Piankhi's army was effective, but badly disciplined.

        The leaders of the Syrian league, and the remnant of their combined armies, seized the opportunity and sought sanctuary within the walls of Megiddo. Piankhi was compelled to renew the battle. A prolonged assault of the city was initiated. Piankhi could only lament the unnecessary extension of the conflict as he ordered the siege of Megiddo.

Then spake his majesty on hearing the words of his army, saying: "Had ye captured [this city] afterward, behold, I would have given -- Re this day; because every chief of every country that has revolted is within it; and because it is the capture of a thousand cities, this capture of Megiddo. Capture ye mightily, mightily ... BAR II 432

        In the seventh month after the siege began it ended successfully. The Annals record the outcome, they do not discuss its duration.. For that bit of information we are dependant on a stela inscription not available to Breasted when he wrote his Ancient Records. We refer to the granite stela of Menkheperre Thutmose discovered several decades later by Reisner in his 1915/16 excavations at the Barkal temple in Napata, a stela already mentioned in our discussion of Piankhi's names. [Henceforth we will refer to this monument as the Barkal stele to distinguish it from Piankhi's great stela and his sandstone stela.] There, in the first court of the temple of Amun, the identical location where the great stele of Piankhi was discovered in 1862, Reisner unearthed from the debris the sequel to Piankhi's story. But this second monument was inscribed with the name Menkheperre, not Piankhi, and it was erected in the kings 43rd year, over two decades after the suppression of the Tefnakht rebellion, and at the end of the military career of the great warrior king. It is not the case that Piankhi had changed his name between his 21st and his 43rd years. As we will see in the second half of this book, the name Menkheperre Thutmose was adopted at the beginning of his kingship.

        The Barkal stela, made of grey granite, is even taller, though not so wide, as the "great stela" of Piankhi. According to Reisner "the slab is 173 cm. high, 97 cm. wide, and about 15 cm thick." We will have cause to return to its inscription several times in the course of our investigation. Here we are concerned to note only the important reference to the battle at Megiddo.

Now I relate to you further (deeds). Hear ye, O people. He [Amun] commanded (i.e. granted) to me the foreign lands of Retenuw in the first campaign, when they came to contend with My Majesty with millions of men, hundreds of thousands of the foremost of all foreign lands, and stood on their chariots, being 330 chiefs, each at the head of his army. (line 19)
Now they were in the valley of Kina, encamped indeed in a trap (?), (and) I had a great success among them. My majesty attacked them and they fled at once, falling down in heaps of slain. (line 20)
They entered Megiddo, and My Majesty besieged it for a period of seven months without their coming forth (i.e. until they came forth)beseeching My Majesty, saying: Give us thy breath, O our Lord, (for) the foreigners of Retenuw will never again be rebellious." (line 21) [10]

        It is clear from the Barkal stele (and from the description of the battle of Megiddo in the annals) that the leader of the coalition which opposed Menkheperre was the "chief of Kadesh", a city in north central Syria. When the battle ended, and the Syrian chiefs acknowledged Piankhi's sovereignty, it was the chief of Kadesh who acted as their spokesman.

Then that fallen one (the chief of Kadesh) together with the chiefs who were with him, sent forth to My Majesty all their people (?) bearing many gifts of gold and silver, all their horses and that which belonged to them, their great chariots of gold and silver and those which were painted, all their battle armor, their bows, their arrows, all their weapons of war. These it was which they came from afar to fight against My Majesty, and now they brought them as gifts to My Majesty. Meanwhile they were standing on their walls and were giving praise (obeisance) to My Majesty, seeking that the breath of life be given to them. (lines 22,23)
Then My Majesty caused them to swear an oath, saying: We will never again act evilly against Menkheperra, may he live forever, our Lord, in our life-time (as long as we live), for we have seen his glory. Let him give to us breath as he wishes. His father (?) it is who has [done it (for him), Amon-Ra Lord of Karnak], not indeed the power of man." (line 24)
Then My Majesty let them take the road to their cities, and they departed all of them (riding) on donkeys, for I was in possession of (I took) their horse-chariots. I carried off the citizens thereof as booty to Egypt, and their chattels likewise." (line 25) [11]

        It is noteworthy that Menkheperre and Piankhi, on the assumption that they are not the same person, share the same intense, almost passionate devotion to the god Amon. It is also significant that the only tribute worthy of mention by Menkheperre are the horses of the Syrian chieftains (not "horse-chariots"[12] as Reisner translates). If the two pharaohs lived over 800 years apart, it is intriguing that they share the same passions. Apparently Amun has not lost his preeminence over that extreme duration! But that is an issue for another time.

        It appears, at first glance, that the subject of most interest to us, Piankhi's subsequent tour of conquest in Syria, and his brief liaison with the Assyrians, is not discussed in the Barkal Stela and is all but overlooked in the brief sequel recorded in the Annals. The later, having devoted most of its space to the details of the Megiddo incident, concludes with only a few hints of subsequent events, contained in a brief description of plunder taken during the first campaign.

List of that which was afterward taken by the king, of the household goods of that foe who was in the [the city of] Yenoam, in Nuges, and in Herenkeru, together with all the goods of those cities which submitted themselves, which were brought to [his majesty: 474] --; 38 lords of theirs, 87 children of that foe and of the chiefs who were with him, 5 lords of their, 1,796 male and female slaves with their children, non-combatants who surrendered because of famine with that foe, 103 men; total, 2503. BAR II 436

The Extent of the 1st Campaign

        We might be tempted, on reading the annals, to minimize the scope of Menkheperre's tour of conquest following the battle of Megiddo. Only three cities are singled out for attention - Yenoam, Nuges, Herenkeru. Were it not for inscriptions located elsewhere in the Karnak temple, we might have difficulty proving our case. For it follows from what has been said thus far that if Menkheperre did not advance to the Euphrates following the Battle of Megiddo, and there act in league with Assyria in driving back the army of Nabopolassar, then our identification is in error. Our hypothesis is incorrect. Fortunately the sequel to the assault on Megiddo can be determined from sundry details in the annals themselves, and from inscriptions elsewhere in the Theban temple of Amun.

        The additional inscriptions alluded to consist of two distinct lists of cities conquered by Menkheperre in the course of his first campaign. The first list, preserved in triplicate [13] lists 119 cities conquered by the Egyptian king. Breasted describes these cities as occupying the region "from the northern limits of Palestine southward an uncertain distance into Judea, as well as Damascus and its district". But this description is inaccurate. In Breasted's own words, one of the lists of conquered cities is introduced by a title "which would indicate that some of the places belong farther north". This introductory "title" specifically states that the conquered cities occupied "all inaccessible lands of the marshes of Asia", lands which "had never been trodden by the other kings, beside his majesty." [14] The phrase "marshes of Asia" mentioned in this heading is almost certainly the same area alluded to in the introductory lines of the annals, a passage quoted earlier. In those opening lines, in the introduction to his first campaign, it was Menkheperre's stated objective to recover for Egypt lands stretching "from Yeraza to the marshes of the earth", a phrase to which Breasted adds an explanatory footnote: "that is, from northwestern Judea to beyond the Euphrates." [15] Surely Menkheperre did not boast of setting out to conquer all of Syria, to the waters of the Euphrates, only to settle for territories south of the Lebanon. [16]

        But if this list of cities, duplicated elsewhere, hints at the fact that Menkheperre crossed the Euphrates in his first campaign, a second list, longer than the first, is even more suggestive. According to Breasted, basing his comments on an earlier analysis of the list by Müller :

The second list [17] embraced 248 names (of which many are lost) of cities in northern Syria and also perhaps as far east as the Chaboras River, but our geographical knowledge of this region is too meager as yet to identify any number of the places included.  BAR II 403

        The shorter list of conquered cities, in all three versions, begins with the name of Kadesh, the city of the rebel leader, as if to underscore its strategic importance. There can be no doubt that the first campaign extended at least that far north. And as can be seen from any map of the area, Kadesh lies at approximately the same latitude as Qablinu. Advancing that far, Piankhi would have ready access to the Euphrates where his forces could join ranks with the Assyrian army.

        But we anticipate an objection from the critic. Why did Menkheperre omit any mention of the conquest of Syria (other than the inclusion of the name of Kadesh), both in the annals and in the Barkal stela. Why does he single out for mention only three insignificant Lebanese towns, if he truly advanced as far as central Syria? And how did he conquer all of Lebanon and Syria in such a short time? The latter objection will surely be voiced most strenuously. The siege of Megiddo began on the 21st day of the 9th Egyptian month, thus early in April 616 B.C.. It ended, according to the Barkal stela, seven months later, perhaps early in October. The Babylonian Chronicle dates the actions of the Egyptian/Assyrian coalition in the months Tashritu, at latest mid to late October. Menkheperre must have conquered the whole of this vast territyory in the space of a few short weeks. How was this possible?

        Far from being a serious objection to our thesis, the time-line actually serves to confirm it's accuracy by suggesting a common answer to all questions.  It is transparent from our earlier comments on the battle of Megiddo that all the chief cities of Syria were aligned against Menkheperre on the plains near Megiddo. According to the Barkal stela there "came to contend with My Majesty ... millions of men, hundreds of thousands of the foremost of all foreign lands, and stood on their chariots, being 330 chiefs, each at the head of his army." When the fighting ended on the field of battle and the Syrian chiefs sought sanctuary within the city, Menkheperre correctly appraised the situation. By taking Megiddo he would in effect become ruler of Syria, without having to conquer a single Syrian city.[18]  Piankhi's words at the time, quoted earlier, bear repeating.

Then spake his majesty on hearing the words of his army, saying: "Had ye captured [this city] afterward, behold, I would have given -- Re this day; because every chief of every country that has revolted is within it; and because it is the capture of a thousand cities, this capture of Megiddo. Capture ye mightily, mightily ... BAR II 432

        Table 3 below provides a probable time line for the first campaign, based on all known inscriptions of Menkheperre.
 
 

        But if Menkheperre/Piankhi did in fact lend his army to assist Sinsharishkun in repelling the advances of Nabopolassar in 616 B.C., after having first conquered the whole of Syria and Palestine, what evidence is there to confirm the fact? Surely this alliance would deserve mention in the Annals. Once again we are not disappointed. We did not expect the Euphrates incident to be included in the description of the first campaign. Piankhi returned to Egypt immediately following his whirlwind tour of conquest. [20] For him the campaign was over. The army, or a portion of it, was left behind to assist Assyria and secure the Syrian lands. A record of its activities should be found instead in the annals for the next year.
 

Tribute of Assyria and Babylon

        The Annals conclude their description of the first campaign with a description of the three resisting cities followed by a list of tribute. The inscription proceeds without pause to detail Menkheperre's second campaign, undertaken the year following, his 24th year. It was apparently a tour to revisit the territories conquered the year before; perhaps to put down any insurrection, or to deter any threatened insurrection. It was certainly intended to collect tribute. The inscription begins:

[List of the tribute of Assur and of] the chiefs of Retenu in the year 24.
The tribute of the chief of Assur: genuine lapis lazuli, a large block, making 20 deben, 9 kidet; genujine lapis lazuli 2 blocks; total 3; and pieces, [making] 30 deben; total, 50 deben; total 50 deben and 9 kidet; fine lapis lazuli from Babylon; vessels of Assur of (Hrtt-)stone in colors, -- -- -- -- very many. BAR II 446

Year 24. List of the tribute brought to the fame of his majesty in the country of Retenu. Tribute of the chief of Assur: h[orses] --. A [--] of skin of the m-h'-w as the protection of a chariot, of the finest of -- wood; 190 wagons ------ -- wood, nhb wood, 343 pieces; carob wood, 50 pieces; mrw wood, 190 pieces; nby and k'nk wood, 206 pieces; [olive wood], .... BAR II 449

Far-off Assyria also, which had now heard of the great victory of the preceding year, sent gifts, which the scribe calls "tribute" (ynw) like that of Syria. BAR II 444

        And how, we enquire further, were these "gifts" securely transported over such a tremendous distance, through "unfriendly" territory?  Why did the Mitanni overlords not intervene to confiscate this treasure? Why, in fact, were no "gifts" forthcoming from Mitanni to Menkheperre?

        The vision of 190 wagons laden with wood, of hundreds of pound of lapis lazuli, more precious by weight than gold, and unnumbered horses, toiling through the mountainous highlands wherein lie the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates, all to appease a foreign dignitary who has never ventured further north than the Lebanon, is difficult to accept. But it need not be accepted. With the Menkheperre Annals placed in a 7th century context the difficulty disappears entirely.

        The tribute of Assur did not consist of gifts, freely given. Assyria had received from Egypt the previous year the ultimate gift - military aid which served to prolong the nation's life. The scribe is not mistaken. The materials sent by way of compensation were probably a negotiated settlement for the assistance rendered by Egypt. What else to call them but tribute.

        And the proffered treasure did not require a lengthy and arduous journey to reach its destination. Assyria bordered the Syrian territories recently defeated by Egypt. The wagons needed only to cross the Euphrates and journey the several miles to meet with emissaries sent by Piankhi. The tribute of Assur is the surest proof thus far of the accuracy of our claim. Menkheperre/Piankhi had indeed reached the marshes of Asia in his 23rd year.
 

Assyrian Adversaries

        But there are yet further indications that the campaigns of Menkheperre belong in the 7th, not in the 15th century B.C. We notice that the tribute of the 2nd campaign included, in addition to "gifts" from Assyria, "fine lapis lazuli from Babylon". Is this simply another coincidence, two identical situations - Babylon and Assyria having dealings with an Egyptian pharaoh who, at least according to one interpretation has recently employed his army in the vicinity of Qablinu - described both in the 15th century B.C. annals of Menkheperre Thutmose and also in the 7th century Babylonian Chronicle of Nabopolassar. Or are the two documents, the Annals and the Chronicle, by error placed in time periods 800 years apart? Are they not actually describing the same events from different points of view? The circumstances are remarkably similar. The Egyptian king in both instances has the identical throne name Menkheperre and arguably the same five fold titulary. The events take place in the 23rd year of Menkheperre Piankhi according to calculations arrived at independently in our earlier book length revision. It is the 23rd year of Menkheperre according to his Karnak temple Annals.

        The reference to Babylon in the Annals of Menkheperre is for other reasons problematic for the traditional history. Babylon was a city, not the designation of a people or nation (as appears to be the case here) in the 15th century B.C.. And the "fine lapis lazuli from Babylon" is treated, as are all items in this section of the annals, as "tribute". Breasted wisely refrains from attempting to explain why the city of Babylon would pay tribute, or send "gifts" to an Egyptian king of no consequence. There is no palatable explanation. Babylon is even more distant than Assyria and thus even less likely to attempt to establish diplomatic relations. But by the 7th century the situation has changed dramatically. Babylon is now a nation, rivaling Assyria for control of the Upper Euphrates. It has only recently received a setback at Qablinu. Perhaps the Egyptian army acquired the lapis lazuli from Babylonian casualties in the brief skirmish at Qablinu. Or a token "gift" might well have been sent to the Egyptian king, now sovereign of a neighboring state, to buy his favor. After all, Nabopolassar's quarrel was with Assyria, not with Egypt.

        But the critic might intrude at this point and press the issue of the Mitanni. After all, we mentioned the existence of this nation in our discussion of the tribute from Assyra.  It might be asked:  If 15th century B.C. documents, including the Annals of Menkheperre Thutmose (in its descriptions of later campaigns), mention the presence of a nation called Mitanni inhabiting the lands near the bend of the Euphrates, and if the Annals actually belong to the late 7th century B.C. as we argue, then why are the Mitanni not mentioned in the Babylonian Chronicle. The answer is simple - they are mentioned.

        The Annals do not allude to the presence of the Mitanni until after the 4th campaign of Menkheperre, i.e. after 610 B.C.  According to the Chronicle in the year 609 B.C. the Assyrians were displaced in the Euphrates region by the combined forces of Babylon and Media. After this date the Medians inhabited the northern reaches of the Euphrates formerly ruled by Assyria. It follows that the Mitanni of the Annals and the Median allies of Nabopolassar are one and the same nation. I am not the first revisionist to argue this fact. We will comment further on the matter in a later chapter.

        Clearly the history of three nations, Babylon, Assyria, and Mitanni, have been wrongly informed by the misdated Annals of Menkheperre. When the error is corrected we anticipate finding that none of these nations existed, as described in the traditional history, in the 15th century B.C.. In particular the Mitanni have been grossly misrepresented.  If our argument is correct this 15th century nation will prove to be a total fiction, a fact argued persuasively by Immanuel Velikovsky in the middle of the last century.
 

The 2nd & 3rd Campaigns

        The 2nd campaign, during which Menkheperre received tribute from Retenu, Assyria and Babylon, occupied the whole of his 24th year, the 11th of Nabopolassar (615 B.C.). The record for that year has already been reviewed. As Breasted notes, "this campaign seems to have been only a circuitous march through Palestine and southern Syria to receive the submission and tribute of the dynasts" (BAR IV 444)

        The 3rd campaign, which occupied the king's 25th year (614 B.C.) was even more benign. So much so that the documentation for this year was inscribed elsewhere in the Theban temple. Apparently Piankhi's attention had turned to horticulture. We let Breasted explain.

The Annals contain no account of the third campaign which was evidently a peaceful tour of inspection. The record of its results required more room than the wall of the Annals afforded, hence it was transferred to a chamber in the rear of the temple, and recorded in a long series of reliefs representing the flora and fauna of Syria, brought back from this campaign. BAR IV 450

Year 25, under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menkheperre, living forever. Plants which his majesty found in the land of Retenu. All plants that [grow], all flowers that are in God's Land [which were found by] his majesty when his majesty proceeded to Upper Retenu, to subdue [all] the countrie[s,] according to the command of his father, Amon ... BAR IV 451

The 4th Campaign.

        The annals for the 4th campaign, which must have occupied some part of the years 26-28 of Menkheperre, are missing. According to Breasted "the account of this campaign, if any existed, is lost; it was not recorded on the wall of the Annals, and may have been put elsewhere, like the third." [21]  It is only because the Annals continue without pause from the depiction of the 2nd campaign in the kings 24th year to a description of the 5th campaign in his 29th year, and because the 3rd campaign is registered to the 25th year, that we know a 4th campaign must have taken place in the stated interval. The silence is both intriguing and foreboding. It is also most regrettable. The years 26-28 of Menkheperre must correspond, according to the revised chronology, to the years 613-611 B.C. on the Julian calendar. These are pivotal years in the history of the Ancient Near East.

        When first we looked at the Babylonian Chronicle an Egyptian army was lending assistance to Assyria in driving back the advancing armies of Nabopolassar at Qablinu. The year was 616 B.C. The Chronicle makes no further mention of Egypt through the year 611 B.C.. Only in 610 B.C. does Egypt again enter the picture, as we will observe in the next chapter. In the interval between 616 B.C. and 610 B.C. the Chronicle describes an alliance forged between Babylon and a northern neighbor referred to as the Umman-Manda, universally acknowledged to be the Median empire. In 614 B.C. the armies of the two nations combined to sack and pillage the city of Assur, and two years later siege and destroy Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire.  In the battle Sinshariskun, successor to Ashurbanipal, lost his kingdom and probably, though not certainly, his life.

        Following the loss of Nineveh and the death of Sinsharishkun in July/August of 612 B.C., the Assyrians withdrew to their last remaining sanctuary, the walled city of Harran on the Balikh River, near the western bend of the Euphrates. According to the Chronicle, at the end of the fourteenth year of Nabopolassar, thus early in 611 B.C., "Ashuruballit ... in the city of Harran sat on the throne as king of Assyria." (lines 49b-50a)

        Throughout these crucial three years (614-612 B.C.), as Assur, then Nineveh fall victim to Media/Babylon, the Chronicle is silent concerning the activities of Egypt. The annals for Menkheperre's years 26-28, which correspond to these same three years, might have filled this historical vacuum. Unfortunately they are missing. Apparently Menkheperre did not lend his army to assist his Assyrian ally (else the Chronicle would have made note of the fact). Assur and Nineveh are 500 miles distant from the bend of the Euphrates, and an additional several hundred miles from the lands of Upper Retenu, now controlled by Egypt. The threat was too remote, and the danger to great, to risk the Egyptian army. Menkheperre apparently kept his distance. But as we have noted elsewhere, in the opening chapter of Nebuchadnezzar, the presence of Egypt in Syria did at least serve to delay the ultimate fall of Assyria. For Media and Babylon did not immediately pursue their advantage. They did not continue west to devastate the remnant army of Assuruballit, now resident in Harran. We have argued that the delay is likely attributable to the proximity of Harran and Upper Retenu. The remains of the Assyrian army were no match for the combined forces of Media and Babylon. But the Egyptian army, assisting the fledgling king Assuruballit, was a threat to be reckoned with. Over two years would pass following the destruction of Nineveh, before Media and Babylon would attempt to take Harran and eliminate completely the Assyrian threat. That story is reserved for the next chapter.
 

Postscript

        Thus far we have observed a remarkable correspondence between the lives of two kings who, in the traditional history, are separated in time by over 700 years.

        The argument which filled eleven chapters of our earlier book established the fact that the 21st year of Piankhi, the year he erected his great stela, should in all likelihood correspond to the Julian year 617 B.C. If so, then he must be the king whose army allied with Assyria in driving the Babylonian army of Nabopolassar from the vicinity of the western bend of the Euphrates late in the year 616 B.C., thus dating the latter event to his 22/23rd year. It follows that he must have conquered the hundreds of city states in the Lebanon and Syria in a very brief duration in the interim, certainly in less than a year. This unprecedented rapid expansion needed to be explained. We expected, should we be able to find them, that his monuments might show evidence of his dialogue with the Assyrians and of diplomatic dealings with the Babylonians. We also determined, prior to our discovery of the Menkheperre annals, that Piankhy is a title, not a personal name, and that the combined evidence form Barkal and Egypt suggested that he periodically employed much of the titulary of the 18th dynasty king Thutmose III, a usage which may have extended to both cartouche names - Menkheperre Thutmose. From the Piankhi stele we further observed the twin passions of the Nubian king, an intense devotion to the god Amun and a love of horses. All this before we began our search for the Piankhi inscriptions.

        In the Theban temple of Amun, precisely where we expected the Piankhi monuments to be, we found the annals of Menkheperre Thutmose.  They began with a description of his conquest of Syria in his 22nd/23rd year. The conquest was a whirlwind affair, unusually rapid because it was accomplished without having to lay siege to a single Syrian city. The location of the annals and the content of the inscriptions reveal, on the part of the king, an intense devotion to Amun and a fondness for horses. There is clear indication that the king has had recent involvement with Assyria and Babylon. Assyria appears to border on the newly acquired Syrian territory of Menkheperre. Far away Babylon appears to be currying favor with Egypt.

        We are barely one chapter into our argument. But already we are struck by a remarkable sequence of correspondent elements in the lives of the two Menkheperre's. The time-line is particularly striking. It remains to be seen whether these parallels will continue beyond the year 610 B.C.?