I was fooling around with an RNG trying to get quick PoDs, and ended up with 2789 BC. Reading up on that century, I learned that during this period Egypt was undergoing a civil war of sorts between the followers of Horus and Set, with the Horus cult victorious. What if this war had gone the other way, with the Set cult triumphing? I understand that we don't know much about this period of history, but is it possible to make some generalizations about how history might change? Are there other interesting possibilities with this war?
WI: Alternate Second Dynasty of Egypt?
- Thread starter rvbomally
- Start date
NikoZnate or God Eater of the Marshes are probably the best ones to answer this, but a couple of thoughts:
The war between Set and Horus is quite possibly an allegory of the conquest of Lower Egypt by Upper Egypt, seen through the lens of centuries of myth-making. Others suggest that it may represent a power struggle within Upper Egypt, but let's go with the conquest theory for the moment. If so, then an alternate outcome in which Set triumphs would involve either a successful Lower Egyptian war of independence or, more likely, a Lower Egyptian dynasty seizing power in a unified Egypt.
This could happen either immediately after the fall of the First Dynasty (possibly as a result of less stable dynastic rule) or during the reign of Set-Peribsen, a Second Dynasty king whose name actually did refer to Set. Nobody's really sure why he picked that name, but it's possible that he came to power with the aid of Lower Egyptian nobles who favored the Set cult, and in an ATL world, the dynastic center might shift to Lower Egypt during his reign.
I don't know enough about the cultural differences between early dynastic Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt to speculate about all the results of such a shift. It's fairly certain, however, that Egyptian religion would be different. The Osiris myth would either be downplayed or reworked, possibly with Set as a hero and Horus as the villain (e.g., Set as the wizard-god who kills Osiris, who has been infected with disease by Horus, in order that he may be cured and reborn with greater power -- an allegory of the overthrow of the corrupt Upper Egyptian First Dynasty to create a "better" unified Egypt). Set would have a much more positive role in mythology, possibly taking Osiris' place as a legendary teacher.
Also, human sacrifice was practiced during the First Dynasty - the kings (and one queen) of that dynasty are buried with their servants - but this practice stopped abruptly during the Second. Maybe the ATL Egypt would practice human sacrifice for a longer time, although I have no idea if this was done in Lower Egypt or associated with the cult of Set during that period.
Finally, Set was sometimes syncretized with the Asiatic storm god - the Hyksos, for instance, favored the Set cult during the period when they ruled Lower and Middle Egypt. If Set is the dominant god in the Egyptian pantheon, I imagine this would change relations with the Asiatics somehow - Egypt and Byblos already had close relations by this time - and might possibly make Egypt more willing to accept the rule of a Levantine dynasty.
I'd be interested to hear what NikoZnate thinks.
Poking around this thread, I found this analysis of what an Egypt dominated by Lower Egypt might look like:
With the Early Dynastic period it's a bit difficult to assert exactly what was going on...
The order imposed by the First Dynasty appears to have broken down under King Anedjib, who was in turn succeeded by Semerkhet under dubious circumstances (it has been hypothesized that Semerkhet was a usurper, and he took vindictive measures against Anedjib such as having his name erased from votive vases). Later dynasties appear to have regarded Semerkhet's succession and 9 year reign as legitimate, however, as his name is included in all king lists. Semerkhet apparently suffered several "disasters" (of an unspecified nature) during his reign, was then succeeded by Qa'a, who actually ruled for 26 years (give or take) despite apparent unrest in both the South and the North - implying a multi-faction rebellion against central authority rather than a war between two different cults.
The Second Dynasty begins with Hotepsekhemwy, whose name ("Both Powers are Content") implies that he had a hand in stabilizing the country. He also buried Qa'a, which implies that he regarded him as the legitimate monarch on whose authority he based his own claim. The dynasty is actually stable (and seems to have succeeded the First in good order) until the reign of Set-Peribsen, whom Jonathan Edelstein mentioned. There are theories that Set-Peribsen was a heretic attempting to completely re-work Egyptian religion (which was still in its formative period), to the point where his serekh-name was shown under the protection of the Set-animal rather than the falcon of Horus, but the fact that his mortuary cult persisted until the Fourth Dynasty suggests that, whatever his faults, heresy was not one of them. Some scholars think Egypt was actually divided at the time (either at the beginning of or shortly before Peribsen's reign), with Set-Peribsen actually ruling in Upper Egypt from Tjenu (Thinis), and another king, Senedj, ruling in Lower Egypt from Mennufer (Memphis).
If this latter hypothesis is correct, it may actually be the source of the Horus and Set myth (in which Set ruled Upper Egypt and Horus Lower Egypt, despite their traditional associations being reversed). It's possible that Senedj and Set-Peribsen divided Egypt between them in the wake of civil unrest following the death of Nynetjer, and even seems likely that Set-Peribsen's successor, Sekhemib-Perenma'at, only ruled Upper Egypt as well... The country was not firmly united under a single ruler until Khasekhemwy ("Both Powers Arise" - another possible reference to Reunification - especially as Khasekhemwy was originally named Khasekhem, "Power Arises"), after which a unified Egypt is firmly established by the Third Dynasty - the founding dynasty of the Old Kingdom.
TL;DR - There may have been a war between kings associated with Horus and Set, but their power bases were reversed - with the Horus faction in Lower Egypt and the Set-faction in Upper Egypt. If this was the case, it actually was Lower Egypt that reunited the country under Khasekhemwy.
Regarding a triumphant Cult of Set in this war... I agree and disagree with some of what Jonathan said...
I don't think the centre of political power would shift to Lower Egypt - Mennufer was already surprisingly well established as the capital of a united Egypt by this time, so the victorious faction would want to legitimize itself by moving the capital back there.
I don't think human sacrifice would be practiced any longer than OTL - it had already ceased for three generations by the time Set-Peribsen and Senedj took their respective thrones
I think relations with the Asiatics would actually be much the same. It was the Horus-kings of Lower Egypt that began the "special relationship" with Byblos, not the Set-kings of Upper Egypt. In fact, Khasekhemwy was the king responsible for essentially founding the institution of a navy in Egypt, based on imports of cedar from *Lebanon. A victory for the Set-kings in this scenario may actually sour Egyptian-Levantine relations for a while, and Set's status as patron-god of foreign lands may actually be re-worked to make him the vanquisher of the foreigners who aided the Horus-kings.
I do agree that the Osiris myth would be reworked to paint Set in a more flattering light. It's also possible that we might see an order of kingly succession based more on seniority rather than primogeniture, but that's operating on the assumption that Senedj was Nynetjer's son, and Peribsen Nynetjer's brother (which would have it fit nicely into the Horus myth), their conflict ultimately stemming from a succession dispute.
As for what Fearless Leader said in the other thread...
- Hieroglyphs aren't going anywhere. They predate the Early Dynastic. Also, the Phoenician script is ultimately derived from the Egyptian hieroglyphic script (via proto-Sinaitic and Canaanite), so getting rid of hieroglyphs in the first place means it never emerges at all.
- The Pyramids as we know them certainly wouldn't appear, though chances are something pyramid-like would. There are only so many ways to build a tall structure with the technology available in the period.
Now, broad historical generalizations? Maybe in keeping with Set's changed role as vanquisher of foreign lands (assuming the hypothesis about the war is correct), Egypt becomes more interventionist in the Near East earlier in its history. This could go either way, but regardless, history as we know it is completely butterflied. I think Jonathan may be on to something about hypothetical future Levantine dynasties of Egypt syncretizing Set with their own storm gods to make their rule more palatable, but that's far into the future here...
The order imposed by the First Dynasty appears to have broken down under King Anedjib, who was in turn succeeded by Semerkhet under dubious circumstances (it has been hypothesized that Semerkhet was a usurper, and he took vindictive measures against Anedjib such as having his name erased from votive vases). Later dynasties appear to have regarded Semerkhet's succession and 9 year reign as legitimate, however, as his name is included in all king lists. Semerkhet apparently suffered several "disasters" (of an unspecified nature) during his reign, was then succeeded by Qa'a, who actually ruled for 26 years (give or take) despite apparent unrest in both the South and the North - implying a multi-faction rebellion against central authority rather than a war between two different cults.
The Second Dynasty begins with Hotepsekhemwy, whose name ("Both Powers are Content") implies that he had a hand in stabilizing the country. He also buried Qa'a, which implies that he regarded him as the legitimate monarch on whose authority he based his own claim. The dynasty is actually stable (and seems to have succeeded the First in good order) until the reign of Set-Peribsen, whom Jonathan Edelstein mentioned. There are theories that Set-Peribsen was a heretic attempting to completely re-work Egyptian religion (which was still in its formative period), to the point where his serekh-name was shown under the protection of the Set-animal rather than the falcon of Horus, but the fact that his mortuary cult persisted until the Fourth Dynasty suggests that, whatever his faults, heresy was not one of them. Some scholars think Egypt was actually divided at the time (either at the beginning of or shortly before Peribsen's reign), with Set-Peribsen actually ruling in Upper Egypt from Tjenu (Thinis), and another king, Senedj, ruling in Lower Egypt from Mennufer (Memphis).
If this latter hypothesis is correct, it may actually be the source of the Horus and Set myth (in which Set ruled Upper Egypt and Horus Lower Egypt, despite their traditional associations being reversed). It's possible that Senedj and Set-Peribsen divided Egypt between them in the wake of civil unrest following the death of Nynetjer, and even seems likely that Set-Peribsen's successor, Sekhemib-Perenma'at, only ruled Upper Egypt as well... The country was not firmly united under a single ruler until Khasekhemwy ("Both Powers Arise" - another possible reference to Reunification - especially as Khasekhemwy was originally named Khasekhem, "Power Arises"), after which a unified Egypt is firmly established by the Third Dynasty - the founding dynasty of the Old Kingdom.
TL;DR - There may have been a war between kings associated with Horus and Set, but their power bases were reversed - with the Horus faction in Lower Egypt and the Set-faction in Upper Egypt. If this was the case, it actually was Lower Egypt that reunited the country under Khasekhemwy.
Regarding a triumphant Cult of Set in this war... I agree and disagree with some of what Jonathan said...
I don't think the centre of political power would shift to Lower Egypt - Mennufer was already surprisingly well established as the capital of a united Egypt by this time, so the victorious faction would want to legitimize itself by moving the capital back there.
I don't think human sacrifice would be practiced any longer than OTL - it had already ceased for three generations by the time Set-Peribsen and Senedj took their respective thrones
I think relations with the Asiatics would actually be much the same. It was the Horus-kings of Lower Egypt that began the "special relationship" with Byblos, not the Set-kings of Upper Egypt. In fact, Khasekhemwy was the king responsible for essentially founding the institution of a navy in Egypt, based on imports of cedar from *Lebanon. A victory for the Set-kings in this scenario may actually sour Egyptian-Levantine relations for a while, and Set's status as patron-god of foreign lands may actually be re-worked to make him the vanquisher of the foreigners who aided the Horus-kings.
I do agree that the Osiris myth would be reworked to paint Set in a more flattering light. It's also possible that we might see an order of kingly succession based more on seniority rather than primogeniture, but that's operating on the assumption that Senedj was Nynetjer's son, and Peribsen Nynetjer's brother (which would have it fit nicely into the Horus myth), their conflict ultimately stemming from a succession dispute.
As for what Fearless Leader said in the other thread...
- Hieroglyphs aren't going anywhere. They predate the Early Dynastic. Also, the Phoenician script is ultimately derived from the Egyptian hieroglyphic script (via proto-Sinaitic and Canaanite), so getting rid of hieroglyphs in the first place means it never emerges at all.
- The Pyramids as we know them certainly wouldn't appear, though chances are something pyramid-like would. There are only so many ways to build a tall structure with the technology available in the period.
Now, broad historical generalizations? Maybe in keeping with Set's changed role as vanquisher of foreign lands (assuming the hypothesis about the war is correct), Egypt becomes more interventionist in the Near East earlier in its history. This could go either way, but regardless, history as we know it is completely butterflied. I think Jonathan may be on to something about hypothetical future Levantine dynasties of Egypt syncretizing Set with their own storm gods to make their rule more palatable, but that's far into the future here...
A POD in this period would probably butterfly the entire Abrahamic tradition into oblivion, actually.
Ah, thanks for the correction. Do you know why an Upper Egyptian king would have been the one to embrace the Set cult, to the point of using a different form of nomenclature from prior kings?
In any event, this means that an ATL mythology involving Set's victory would result either from a reunification by the Upper Egyptian branch of the dynasty or a permanent separation of Upper Egypt from the territory ruled by the Horus-kings.
I was speculating about human sacrifice in the context of a POD at the end of the First Dynasty or the very beginning of the Second. I agree that a POD in Set-Peribsen's reign would be too late.
This makes sense with the Set side of the conflict being the Upper Egyptian one. I doubt any rift would last very long, though - Byblos had too much that Egypt wanted - and once the relationship was repaired, I'd expect some syncretization of Set with the Canaanite gods.
And pyramids or ziggurats are the easiest tall structures to build - several civilizations hit on them.
Hm, so a more isolationist Egypt followed by a period of hostile interventionism? That would definitely screw with the Near East and make it unrecognizable. Would seizing the coastal cities of the Levant promote seafaring among the Egyptians? Is it plausible to see Egyptians slaughtering the Minoans?
This could have interesting effects on Egypt's stability in the long run. IIRC, Egypt was stable after the establishment of the Old Kingdom, with only a few major shakeups.