Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Eldorado

Did King Tut see battle?

28 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Eldorado
Posted (edited)

"A TV documentary featuring a University of Northampton researcher’s attempts to recreate Tutankhamun’s leather armour has revealed new evidence suggesting the boy king saw battle."

"It was during the filming of ‘Secrets of Tutankhamun’s Treasures’ that the use of Reflectance Transformation Imaging – a relatively new technique which merges several images of an object photographed under different lighting angles – revealed to Lucy these never before seen features on the armour."

Source: https://www.northampton.ac.uk/news/leather-expert-helps-tv-crew-uncover-amazing-new-tutankhamun-evidence/

Elsewhere: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5545915/Was-Tutankhamun-child-warrior-Armour-reveals-famed-pharaoh-battle-hardened-soldier.html?ITO=1490

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/03/26/king-tutankhamun-bombshell-mysterious-pharaoh-may-have-been-boy-soldier.html

Edited by Eldorado
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Well, there was one theory he died from head injuries sustained from falling from a chariot.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
7 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Well, there was one theory he died from head injuries sustained from falling from a chariot.

Actually, the chariot accident involves his distal left femur, where there's evidence of a serious fracture. A popular theory long before the chariot accident was a blow to the skull, specifically to the occipital region. This theory developed out of the original X-rays in the 1960s. But the series of CT scans (2005, I think) settled the matter. There is no real damage to the skull.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Related image

Awkward looking adolescent on the left. Very cool mummy on the right.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wistman

The 'warrior' Tut seems to have currency.  He (it is said) possibly took active part in a campaign against the Hittites, trying to regain tributaries lost under Akhenaten.  His tomb had many personal 'warrior' items agreeable with this analysis (though it also contained many of his personal walking canes, so there's that to consider also.)  The lack of sternum and ribs on his mummy (and no heart!) has been explained (theoretically only, no direct evidence) by a chariot accident, possibly in battlefield, in which his torso was supposedly crushed under a chariot's wheels, and these parts were unable to be protected and preserved before getting the body to the embalmers. 

As an aside: how much General Horemheb would have accepted the authority of a teenage warrior Pharaoh, supplanting his own established role, is worthy of consideration when examining these notions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
Posted (edited)

That must have been a terrifying sight: "Oh, no: here comes the cleft palate-d, crooked-backed, horse-teethed, fused-spine-d, club-footed, malaria-ridden teen-aged king of the Egyptians! On a chariot! We better leave before they send out an army of the /really/ inbred royals!"

--Jaylemurph

Edited by jaylemurph
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
19 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

That must have been a terrifying sight: "Oh, no: here comes the cleft palate-d, crooked-backed, horse-teethed, fused-spine-d, club-footed, malaria-ridden teen-aged king of the Egyptians! On a chariot! We better leave before they send out an army of the /really/ inbred royals!"

--Jaylemurph

:lol:

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orphalesion

Why do we still call the poor lad "King Tut" (which sounds really silly) when he really was the Pharaoh Tutankhamun?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, The Wistman said:

The 'warrior' Tut seems to have currency.  He (it is said) possibly took active part in a campaign against the Hittites, trying to regain tributaries lost under Akhenaten.  His tomb had many personal 'warrior' items agreeable with this analysis (though it also contained many of his personal walking canes, so there's that to consider also.)  The lack of sternum and ribs on his mummy (and no heart!) has been explained (theoretically only, no direct evidence) by a chariot accident, possibly in battlefield, in which his torso was supposedly crushed under a chariot's wheels, and these parts were unable to be protected and preserved before getting the body to the embalmers. 

As an aside: how much General Horemheb would have accepted the authority of a teenage warrior Pharaoh, supplanting his own established role, is worthy of consideration when examining these notions.

Pharaohs were occasionally warrior generals but more often would have overseen the engagement from behind their lines.  I think he might have seen battle, but I don't think he actually fought.  A child as warrior would be a real hindrance and risk on a battlefield.

There's no evidence that he received a warrior's education (unlike Thutmoses III) or that he was sent to a military school (the one for royals was in Heliopolis.)  His father wasn't very good at empire building.

Edited by Kenemet
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
3 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Pharaohs were occasionally warrior generals but more often would have overseen the engagement from behind their lines.  I think he might have seen battle, but I don't think he actually fought.  A child as warrior would be a real hindrance and risk on a battlefield.

There's no evidence that he received a warrior's education (unlike Thutmoses III) or that he was sent to a military school (the one for royals was in Heliopolis.)  His father wasn't very good at empire building.

Eh, as long as he can carry a full-sized shield and lance, a sword, and perhaps a dagger or too, all the while maneuvering a chariot at speed, I say let him do it. Builds character. Kids these days have it too easy. :lol:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
4 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Why do we still call the poor lad "King Tut" (which sounds really silly) when he really was the Pharaoh Tutankhamun?

Only his familiars would have called him Tutankhamun, his birth name. The populace would call him by his throne name, Nebkheperure.

Eh, Tut is just easier to say.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

Only his familiars would have called him Tutankhamun, his birth name. The populace would call him by his throne name, Nebkheperure.

Eh, Tut is just easier to say.

Actually, they would have said “I fall at the feet of my lord, my Storm-god, seven times,One of perfect laws, who pacifies the two lands; Great of the palace of Amun; Lord of all,Who wears crowns and pleases the gods; Ruler of Truth, who pleases the gods; Who wears the crowns of his father, Re; Who wears crowns, and binds the two lands therein, Nebkepherere."   None of this "Hi Tut, you nebbish!"

It made conversing with Tut difficult, and calling him in for dinner took several minutes.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wistman
Posted (edited)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
On 4/2/2018 at 9:50 AM, The Wistman said:

great links, ta. 

i just find it hard to accept that a king or high born would risk life in battle. these were often soft men that new nothing but luxury. lacking physical and mental toughness. so when i read that his armour is scar'd and their is evidence of battle on other artefact they have found i wonder whether his armour might have either purposely been damaged to give that impression that the king fought in the thick of battle. or maybe someone else wore the armour. I'm sure that if Tut rode to battle he would have been surrounded by the very best household guard and engaging the weakest elements in the enemy's lines. and certainly after the result of the battle was beyond doubt in favour of the kings army. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
16 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

great links, ta. 

i just find it hard to accept that a king or high born would risk life in battle. these were often soft men that new nothing but luxury. lacking physical and mental toughness. so when i read that his armour is scar'd and their is evidence of battle on other artefact they have found i wonder whether his armour might have either purposely been damaged to give that impression that the king fought in the thick of battle. or maybe someone else wore the armour. I'm sure that if Tut rode to battle he would have been surrounded by the very best household guard and engaging the weakest elements in the enemy's lines. and certainly after the result of the battle was beyond doubt in favour of the kings army. IMO.

In Japan, if you were High Born and didn't see battle you had no respect. The Eastern Iranians felt the same way as with the pagan Celts and Germans. Why wouldn't the Egyptians feel that way?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wistman
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

great links, ta. 

i just find it hard to accept that a king or high born would risk life in battle. these were often soft men that new nothing but luxury. lacking physical and mental toughness. so when i read that his armour is scar'd and their is evidence of battle on other artefact they have found i wonder whether his armour might have either purposely been damaged to give that impression that the king fought in the thick of battle. or maybe someone else wore the armour. I'm sure that if Tut rode to battle he would have been surrounded by the very best household guard and engaging the weakest elements in the enemy's lines. and certainly after the result of the battle was beyond doubt in favour of the kings army. IMO.

As the official defender of Ma'at, it was traditionally the Pharaoh's duty to defend the 'order' of the kingdom against the 'chaos' of aggression and enemies.  Here is a reference as to that:  http://faculty.uml.edu/ethan_spanier/Teaching/documents/WarriorPharaohIdeologyandArt.pdf

Tut's warrior nature is disputed primarily because of his supposed physical infirmities (based on the analysis of the evidence from his mortal remains) as well as scriptural  evidence that, contrary to the long tradition of pharaohs conducting and participating in armed battle, Amenhotep III (Tut's great-grandfather, or grandfather maybe) initiated a period of militarily supine kingship that seems to have continued through Akhenaten, Ankheperure [I & II), Tutankhamun, and Ay...Horemheb the general broke the hiatus of non- warrior pharaohs when he finally took the crown; Ramesses I (whom Horemheb designated as his successor) was also an army veteran and had sons, and the return to sustainable, old tradition was complete. 

There's some dispute about Tut's attempt at activity in war-making and battle because of Tut's skeletal structure (disabling him) countered by skeletal breaks and absences and the ongoing analysis of his personal artifacts from his tomb which may indicate his participation in some battle-like behavior.  Unfortunately, because of the abandonment of traditions and the 'heresy' of Amarna, many of the public monuments and inscriptions were destroyed or erased/defaced by later kings, so our complete understanding of the era is hobbled by scant information that has to be painstakingly put together, with many gaps left seemingly unfillable.   Some analysts speculate that the influence over the late 18th dynasty kings by the ruling family from Akhmin (i.e. - Tiye and Ay, and possibly Nefertiti), which constituted a threat to the old power structures (Amun, the military, etc.) , was the root cause of the increasingly inactive males in the royal family.  It is not a facile theory to prove.

Whether Crown Prince Thutmose would have followed suit is a question someone I once knew favored pondering; perhaps it's why the prince met with an untimely end.  Maybe someday they'll find his mummy too...his tomb goods might reveal a lot about some of this.

 

Edited by The Wistman
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

There's the ideal and then there's reality. The Egyptians were very big on the ideal, so whatever the reality was, Egyptian citizens were expected to into and honor the ideal. One wonders how many Egyptians really did.

All kings were expected to lead their men into battle. That's a given, and it was an ideal shared by other societies, too. Of course, in the light of reality, most kings did not. Some may never have left the comfort of their thrones. Some may have attended their armies on campaign but stayed at the rear, observing the ensuing battle under a shady canopy.

But it's generally accepted that some kings charged into battle. Pharaohs like Amunhotep I, Amunhotep II. Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis III, Seti I, Ramesses II and Ramesses III were all known as warrior kings—some by necessity (Egypt or its vassal states were in danger from foreigners) and some by will bevause they seem to have craved it. And there is indeed growing evidence that Tutankhamun entered battle at least once.

But I agree with an earlier post in which it was said even those kings who actively engaged in battle, were surrounded by a cohort of guards and regular troops. After all, Ramesses II didn't drive off all those nasty Hittites by himself at Kadesh (although he'd sure like you to believe so).

Say what you want about King Tut. He was the full ruler of one of the world's most powerful states at the time, and he certainly loved action., He was a typical teenager with a need for speed.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
17 hours ago, Piney said:

In Japan, if you were High Born and didn't see battle you had no respect. The Eastern Iranians felt the same way as with the pagan Celts and Germans. Why wouldn't the Egyptians feel that way?

I see your point, it’s just that while some Kings and leaders did go into battle my reading on the subject has led me to believe that not all did. and those that did was only a token jesture. I guess some of the barbaric people’s had different concepts of kingship and what they wanted and needed from a king.

you mentioned the Japanese for example at some point the emperors also became religious leaders and political leaders which meant that any victory or failure on the battle field was considered divine. So protecting such a divine figure would have been more important than say allowing him to go into battle. that why feudal Japan was awash with warlords and shoguns. Leave the fighting to others that way you never really lose.

another important factor was being captured. 

just my opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

you mentioned the Japanese for example at some point the emperors also became religious leaders and political leaders which meant that any victory or failure on the battle field was considered divine.

The "Heavenly Mandate" was also a belief of the Chinese. If you lost a war and was ousted it must of been the will of the Universe. The Japanese belief was slightly different. The Emperor was a descendant of the first god and goddess in the Shinto pantheon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orphalesion
On 3/29/2018 at 5:57 AM, kmt_sesh said:

Only his familiars would have called him Tutankhamun, his birth name. The populace would call him by his throne name, Nebkheperure.

Eh, Tut is just easier to say.

But Tutankhamun isn't exactly difficult to say either, and sounds a lot less silly, and unlike "King Tut" it's at least a name he had.  I'm probably not used to that nickname, since I didn't grow up with it, I, in German he's always Tutanchamun (or sometimes Tutenchamun, because vowels in Egyptian) , not "Koenig Tut" and in French he's always Toutânkhamon not "Le roy Tout",

45 minutes ago, Piney said:

The "Heavenly Mandate" was also a belief of the Chinese. If you lost a war and was ousted it must of been the will of the Universe. The Japanese belief was slightly different. The Emperor was a descendant of the first god and goddess in the Shinto pantheon.

Through Amaterasu, right? I find her very fascinating, she's the highest ranked deity in the Shinto phanteon, I believe which is not that common for a goddess.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, Orphalesion said:

But Tutankhamun isn't exactly difficult to say either, and sounds a lot less silly, and unlike "King Tut" it's at least a name he had.  I'm probably not used to that nickname, since I didn't grow up with it, I, in German he's always Tutanchamun (or sometimes Tutenchamun, because vowels in Egyptian) , not "Koenig Tut" and in French he's always Toutânkhamon not "Le roy Tout",

Through Amaterasu, right? I find her very fascinating, she's the highest ranked deity in the Shinto phanteon, I believe which is not that common for a goddess.

They were originally a matrilineal  society. Then Taoist/ Chinese influence changed that. But it remained in the indigenous belief system.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wistman
Posted (edited)

A person would be a fool to suggest that any king going to a battle would not be protected and even cordoned off from the violence and risk of the fighting on the field.  However, a king's presence would make him a target of the enemy's strategems, so they would try to get to him.  The king himself may issue orders which might be obeyed that contravene his generals' security arrangements or even battle plan.  This may be because the king is an experienced warrior and is spoiling to take a direct hand in the battle, or it may be because he's inexperienced and is being headstrong.  Sometimes the generals' precautions may not prove sufficient to protect the king's person due to the enemy's wily tactics.  Not rarely the king might be filled with lust for blood and glory.  Ramesses II was caught off guard this way in the Battle of Kadesh.  On the other hand Richard III was betrayed at Bosworth Field by one of his allies (Stanley), and Richard it is now confirmed also suffered from a disabling skeletal deformation, as did Tutankhamun; still, he rode in custom armor that helped him overcome his deformity while on horseback and is said to have been a skilled warrior horseman.  Ramesses survived his isolation in battle; Richard did not.  Military history is rich with examples of varying outcomes.

Whatever the case with Tutankhamun, his attendance to an ongoing battle put him at risk (if that's what happened to cause the marks on his leather armor, and maybe catastrophic wounds.)  Political machinations from his own side could have also contributed to a violent outcome for the king; it was a troubled time for power holders and grabbers in Kmt.  Do we know the state of the armies at this point?  Horemheb was ostensibly in charge (but legally subordinate to the king), and had been for a while before Tutankhamun may have expressed his intent to take the field.  Ay moved fast after Tut's death, outflanking Horemheb before the general could get back to Thebes and claim the throne for himself.  Too many unknown knowns, not to mention unknown unknowns, to make a judgment about Tutankhamun's character and battle scars, JMO.  <_<

Edited by The Wistman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wistman
Posted (edited)

Happily there's some fairly recent info about the late Amarna and thereafter military defenses and preparedness, as well as traces of some of the chief Amarna characters:

This is a 2010 final report (pdf) from the excavations at Tell-el-Borg, a military outpost in North Sinai, just beyond the eastern edge of what would have been Egypt's border, entitled "New Light on the Amarna Period from North Sinai"http://www.jacobusvandijk.nl/docs/JEA_96.pdf

It is extremely interesting, with pictures of the artifacts' inscriptions and impressions and of the site.  Here is the final summary paragraph:

Quote

The data reviewed here shed new light on the Amarna period.  Because Tell-el-Borg is located outside of Egypt proper, that is south-east of Tjaru, Egypt’s eastern border town with its forts, the new information shows that throughout the entire Amarna period and immediately thereafter, Akhenaten through Horemheb, Egypt’s military continued to guard the Eastern entrance to Egypt.  Furthermore the unbroken sequence of late Eighteenth Dynasty rulers demonstrates the Egypt was capable logistically of undertaking and sustaining military operations in the Levant during this somewhat obscure period of Egyptian international relations with western Asia.  The line of Eighteenth Dynasty royal names present at Tell-el-Borg continues into the Nineteenth Dynasty, as evidenced by the fragmentary remains of many cartouches of Ramesses II from the gateway of the second fort.  Thus it appears that there was a continuous military presence at this fort from the days of Thutmosis III and Amunhotep II, through the entirety of the Amarna and Post-Amarna Periods and into the Ramesside era.

 

Edited by The Wistman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

Did King Tut see battle? 

who cares!?:sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.