PC : Max Ancient Egypt expansion

201170870

Banned
Plausibility check :
How much can Ancient Egypt expand and settle in Mediterranean and Africa without touching Mesopotamia from Narmer until Hyksos with continuous wars of expansion, full political and religious support and without dynastic change or wars of succession ?
direction of expansion
Capture-min.PNG
 
Last edited:
UniversalCommons

UniversalCommons

The one arrow that is missing expansion into Africa is where they would have most likely have gone, Sudan (Kush), Ethiopia, central Africa. The Kingdoms of Kush, Meroe, Nubia and Aksum which also had pyramids and more cultural relations. It is easier to expand into areas with other pharaohs. The Meditteranean is foreign in culture to Egypt for the most part. Expanding with the Southern Arrow might make sense as well. Also along the Eastern Meditteranean in the levant might have been a more realistic expansion. If you want an actual trade route that they could have followed in Africa and the Meditteranean it would have been the Incense Route. The reason for expansion into Nubia and the Sudan would have been gold. The Incense Route follows the Red Sea for spices, woods, and gold. Also it heads along the coastline of the Meditteranean towards the Horn of Africa.

I would not necessary think the expansion would be headed towards Italy or Turkey.
 

201170870

Banned
How far would expansion go ?
UniversalCommons said:
The one arrow that is missing expansion into Africa is where they would have most likely have gone, Sudan (Kush), Ethiopia, central Africa
Click to expand...
It is there look clearly
UniversalCommons said:
Eastern Meditteranean in the levant might have been a more realistic expansion.
Click to expand...
Why not west for bronze in Spain
UniversalCommons said:
I would not necessary think the expansion would be headed towards Italy or Turkey
Click to expand...
Southern Italy and Western Turkey are very good for cash crops like olives and wine
 
UniversalCommons

UniversalCommons

Another reason that the expansion would be more likely to be to the south is that most of the Egypt's ancient fortresses were pointing towards the south to deal with the Asiatics and the Africans. This is where most of their conflict was focused. In order to ensure they would be able to expand, they would have first had to deal with their southern problems from Nubia, Assyria, the Red Sea, and Africa.
 

201170870

Banned
UniversalCommons said:
Another reason that the expansion would be more likely to be to the south is that most of the Egypt's ancient fortresses were pointing towards the south to deal with the Asiatics and the Africans. This is where most of their conflict was focused. In order to ensure they would be able to expand, they would have first had to deal with their southern problems from Nubia, Assyria, the Red Sea, and Africa.
Click to expand...
But
They can't expand beyond the sudd swamp of South Sudan
Where will they expand in
1500 years?
 
Last edited:
UniversalCommons

UniversalCommons

That would depend on the time period. The Green Sahara is ending at 3000 b.c. It is at a point still where it can be crossed at the very beginning of the Egyptian dynasties. If they use a sea route, on the red sea, they can completely bypass the Sahara and take the southern territories. I can imagine a secret plan and a sudden attack which takes out one of the southern dynasties.

Another key is early conquest of Nubia. At the time period historically, the Nubians were considered by many to be the best archers in the world.
 
Last edited:
Atterdag

Atterdag

Most Egyptian-based states have expanded towards southern Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Nubia, the Red Sea coast and islands in the eastern Mediterranean, potentially the Peloponnese too. I’d guess these are the most likely for an ancient Egyptian state too. Going further west to the Libyan coast, modern day Tunisia, Sicily and southern Italy might be possible with a hugely wanked Egyptian empire.
 

Skraea

I could see Egypt covering all of North Africa, African Horn and Yemen with political influence in Mesopotamia, Levant and Persia. They'd probably have influence in Kenya and in a huge wank maybe even reach South Africa. Ideally, they'd be a major influence in the Arabian Peninsula and set up trade with India.
 

Coivara

Banned
AFAIK the reason Kemet never had a huge empire is that their mentality was more defensive than offensive, unlike, say, the Assyrians, whose very state was founded upon the idea of Universal Empire.
The Pharaoh in the Middle-East was a hegemon figure, more like the Chinese Emperor than the King of the Universe or the Roman Emperor.

The Kemetians thought (with good reason, mind you) that they were the world's greatest civilization and the Pharaoh reigned over other monarchs. That rule of the Pharaoh was order itself and any peoples opposed to his superiority were chaos. So yeah, you need them to think like this: "Kemet is the superior civilization, and therefore it deserves to rule over all other peoples and needs to bring Order to Chaos before Chaos consumes the Gods' Order."

I think that when it comes to territories, you need at least Kush/Nubia and the Levant. I think that in order to make it strong and stable, Kemetian Syria would be perfect in order to provide a strong buffer state between Kemet and whatever power dominates Mesopotamia at the time. It does however, gets Kemet in conflict with Anatolian powers as well, such as the Hittites and the Mitani.

Another possibility: Libya. The Libyans were a headache for the Kemetians sometimes, they even invaded alongside the Sea Peoples during the Bronze Age collapse.

Cyprus is possible and would be interesting, but is the naval technology for this even there? Do they even the naval mentality? Egypt is not a good producer of woods, so they dependent on Lebanon in order to have wood for ships. Might imply that in order for Kemet to obtain naval hegemony over the Eastern Med, they need overlordship/domination of Lebanon.

Greece seems a little far-fetched. Even if the Kemetians can get forces there, are they even able to conquer the place? Especially after the Greeks invent the Hoplite system, Greek heavy infantry was the best in the world. They would be fighting a lot of bickering city-states on the end of a long supply line. Its closer than Persia was, but its still far.
 

StevenIronside

This is supposed to have been Egypt under Thutmoses III have him succeded by another Great warrior king who is focused on expansion and you could have seen Egypt take Mesopotamia more of Anatolia maybe the western coast of Arabia and Yemen, and maybe farther south
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220115-174733_Google.jpg
    Screenshot_20220115-174733_Google.jpg
    474.6 KB · Views: 335

StevenIronside

201170870 said:
No
That's way too expensive to conquer and hold
Waste of resources that could give much more land in Mediterranean
Click to expand...

Doesnt mean they wouldnt have tried in fact its highly likely considering thats were one of several kingdoms they constantly warred with was. I believe it was Thutmoses III who is thought to have campaigned all the way to Babylonia. Its also very rich area, and Egypt was already super rich. It would be akin to Egypt adding another egypt back into its territory. Its also just as close to go from Mesopotamia to Italy so i dont find it to far or expensive for them to take
 
Xenophonte

Xenophonte

201170870 said:
Greece didn't even exist at time
It was just bands uncivilized tribes
Click to expand...
Well, the Classical one with her Poleis political system didn't, but depending on the specific period in continental Greece there was the Mycenaean ('Palace political system') civilization and/or the Aegean 'd be ruled by the Minoan Thalassocracy centered on Crete.
 
Last edited:
Aluma

Aluma

UniversalCommons said:
That would depend on the time period. The Green Sahara is ending at 3000 b.c. It is at a point still where it can be crossed at the very beginning of the Egyptian dynasties. If they use a sea route, on the red sea, they can completely bypass the Sahara and take the southern territories.
Click to expand...
Could perhaps a egyptian colony be made there and then cut off from Egypt due to the Sahara becoming a desert? That way you get another "Egypt" on the other side of Africa that could perhaps be more expansionist and do some conquering on their own
 

PsyloSurgeon

Banned
I sense something familiar about this post. I don't know what it is or what it could be.
Does anyone feel a sense of deja vu? I can sense it in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top