The nonexistent battles of the Egyptian Pharaohs - A Challenge!!

History teaches us that Egypt was a warring nation; a large army was big business. It wasn't required for defence as the Egyptians did not want peace; peace was not a virtue. It was the role of the pharaoh to lead his army to conquer foreign lands and return home with the spoils of war.
Many battles were recorded for posterity on temple walls and some, such as Ramesses II and the battle of Kadesh, were repeated many times. The sacred inscriptions provided details of the many pharaohs who fearlessly fought off and defeated the enemy, sometimes single-handedly.

"The King himself led the way of the army, mighty at its head, like a flame of fire, the king who wrought with his sword. He went forth, none like him, slaying the barbarians, smiting Retenu, bringing their princes as living captives, their chariots, wrought with gold, bound to their horses." (A viceroy of Kush recording Tuthmosis' exploits)

The battle accounts were accompanied by images of the pharaohs in the act of 'smiting the enemy.' The enclosed illustrations are typical of the many recurring scenes which depicted the pharaoh with mace raised ready to vanquish the enemy. Such scenes echoed the mythical conflict between the gods Horus and Seth in the continuing battle of good against evil. This archetypal image can be found in scenes from Egypt through to the fertile-crescent and Anatolia. Some refer to this scene as 'God with the Upraised Arm.'

FACT: Despite the many hundreds of military expeditions carried out by the pharaohs over a 3,000 period archaeologists have been unable to verify ANY of the events recounted in Egyptian records. This, despite the fact that we know the exact location of many of Egypt's Pharaonic battles (Megiddo).

The GKS contends any pharaonic war, military campaign or border skirmish recorded via 'scared' text and images were ALL time honoured accounts of the countless cosmic battles undertaken by Mars, the Moon and Mercury (rarely Venus) in the guise of Egypt's warrior kings, as they fought and defeated the masses upon masses of space debris that once engulfed our solar system 4,000 years ago. This was the very same dust and debris that turned the Sun red for over three millennia.

Before we progress, I would like to make something very clear; I'm not for one moment contending the earthly Egyptians never engaged in warfare, they undoubtedly did, as evidenced by the later occupation by foreign rulers such as the Greeks and Romans (although the evidence seems to suggest these guys just walked in and took over) and some sparse archaeological evidence which we will consider later. The key here is, and will always be, the 'sacred' inscriptions. To reiterate, sacred images and text all recount cosmic events of above and have little if anything to do with proceedings here on earth. It is the very reason why hieroglyphs were considered sacred. I would further add it would be impossible to record and humanise cosmic conflicts unless conflicts were actually experienced here on earth.

Egypts battles and wars, where is the archaeological evidence?

The god Amun (aurora) handing the khepesh sword to the god king Seti (Mercury) who is in the act in of smiting Egypt's enemies - wars in the heavens?

I will shortly present what I consider to be irrefutable archaeological evidence in support of my thesis (more specifically, the lack of it) but first allow me to set the scene by taking a look at some of the oddities surrounding the battles of the pharaohs. The following will be brief and I refer you to my book for a more in depth analysis.

Impossible Logistics?

The record shows numerous kings marched north in to Syro-Palestine. How was it possible for 20,000 soldiers to march some 600 miles plus for months on end across the scorching hot Sinai desert, barefoot and wearing nothing more than a loincloth? To keep thousands of men (and animals) fed, watered, clean and free from disease would have required a superhuman feat on a scale bordering on divine intervention. Yet, if the annals are anything to go by, the Egyptians seem to have managed this impossible feat hundreds of times over with military campaigns north-east into Syro-Palestine. Sometimes, as in the case of Tuthmosis III eighteen consecutive campaigns undertaken in Syria in as many years. Some accounts even recall Egyptian troops carrying boats across distant desert lands in order to engage the enemy. How on earth was this done?

Impossible logistics simply disappear when invoking the GKS.
Errant planetary bodies in the guise of divine warrior kings were observed with vast swarms of moons, asteroids and boulders trailing in their wake, these were the legions of foot soldiers dutifully following the king into battle. They were the celestial doubles (souls/kas) of people here on earth - the Egyptians knew them as their kas
"He shall be at the head of all the kas of the living." Thutmose III: The Napata Stela.

Kings and infantry were observed crashing headlong into swarms of enemy space debris to the north, south, east and west, thus perceived to extend the borders of Upper and Lower Egypt, heaven and Earth.

(Tuthmosis/Moon)

"I made the boundaries of Egypt as far as that which the sun encircles. I made strong those who were in fear; I repelled the evil from them. I made Egypt the superior of every land --------- favorite of Amun, Son of Re, of his body, his beloved Thutmose I, Shining like Re."
By way of sacred inscriptions and images the earthly Egyptians honoured their celestial counterparts (kas) by meticulously recording each and every conflict on temple walls.
Tutankhamun (Mars)

"Perfect god, likeness of Re (sun), who appears over foreign lands like the rising of Re, who destroys this land of vile Kush, who shoots his arrows against the enemy."
They humanised them and gave them the only perspective they could, through that of the natural world. Essentially, we have an 'as above, so below' situation. For example; if Egypt's foes were hundreds miles to the north across the blistering Sinai desert and Pharaonic Mars was observed waging war against space debris above these foreign lands, then, whatever it took to reach this location on earth, it was played out in the annals as such. In other words, what happened above was drawn from the world below; only above, superhuman feats were very much possible.

Planetary god kings riding golden chariots with loyal infantry in tow, traversed the heavens with relative ease, impossible logistics simply disappeared. No watering holes required, no supply route stretching back to Egypt required, no beasts of burden or horses to look after; food just wasn't a problem. Consequently, hunger, malnutrition and staying free from disease simply disappeared in the divine magical world above. Even the numbers of infantry could be exaggerated i.e. 20,000 or 40,000 infantry traversing above the blistering deserts for months on, defeating the 'vile Asiatics,' and returning home in record time becomes completely plausible. This is, of course, from our modern day perspective, to the ancients it was a different story. What they saw were planetary kings, who by their very location were deemed intermediaries between heaven and earth (Upper & Lower Egypt), battling to maintain 'divine order' (ma'at) by fearlessly charging into and vanquishing vast swarms of enemy space debris - thus clearing a path to the gods, the 'next world' and a life of immortality. The very reason why everything had to go through the Pharaoh. These cosmic wars symbolically represented in the iconic 'smiting scenes' carved on numerous temples walls (See the photos on this page).

Leading the army from the front.

Pharaohs adopted the most ridiculous battle tactic that any modern day commanding officer would cringe at, that of leading the army from the front.

"The King himself led the way of the army, mighty at its head, like a flame of fire, the king who wrought with his sword."

Is this possible? Yes, but highly unlikely!

The Pharaoh was Egypt; kings were worshiped as gods, they were intermediaries between heaven and earth, the mortal and the divine. Without the king it was believed the whole cosmos would fall into chaos; without the king there was no Egypt. Despite this fundamental belief Egypt's kings thought it would be a good idea to risk this godly status and by extension Egypt itself by, not only vacating Egypt for many months, but also potentially setting themselves up to be first in line to die - by leading the army from the front!

Common sense dictates with such beliefs and absurd tactics Egypt's foes would be guaranteed certain victory by simply killing the king ('cutting off the head' springs to mind). A task make easy, in that you'd be blind to miss him; he's the one leading the charge in a golden chariot, wearing very distinctive attire including a large blue crown adorned with a rearing cobra. I know who I'd be aiming for to bring this battle to a swift end and you certainly wouldn't need to pin a bulls eye on him.
As mentioned above, planetary bodies in chaos naturally led from the front with vast legions of gravitationally tied asteroids and comets trailing in their wake; planetary bodies were "mighty at the head." Pharaonic planets led the charge literally "like a flame of fire," not humans. Such descriptions are clear alluding to celestial bodies.  (Image above shows Ramesses dispatching a few foes).

Egypt, 3,000 year of warring; Pharaohs killed in action … none!

Hundreds of wars, battles and border skirmishes over a period of three thousand years and yet no pharaoh ever lost a battle. This, as we have just discussed, despite the fact that they all led from the front.

No Pharaoh ever lost a battle because they were all guises of Mars, Mercury and the Moon and these warrior bodies were no match for the lesser armies of 'enemy' asteroids and comets. The celestial warrior kings literally crashed headlong into these and swallowed them up with ruthless efficiency. Although now mere specs of light in the night sky (apart for the Moon), these warriors are still with us and remain undefeated to this day. The surfaces of these planets bear witness to a time when they fought and hoovered up countless tons of 'evil' debris that threatened to blot out the sun (Re) and bring the whole world into chaos. The enemy (and ordinary Egyptians) are always depicted smaller than the king because as boulders and space debris they were.

Not a scratch!

Not only were they never defeated all fighting Pharaohs returned home without a scratch. Ramesses the Great, Tuthmosis III (Egypt's Napoleon) Seti and many other warriors to this very day lie in the Cairo museum showing no signs of engaging in battle. No severed limbs, missing fingers, skin abrasions or battle scared faces (many have been x-rayed). In fact, it is believed (as in the case of Ramesses II and Amenhotep III) they probably died of tooth decay (So much for living gods!). This just doesn't make sense, how is it possible to lead vast armies from the front, engage the enemy in a bloody battle and return home without a scratch?

Warrior kings reveal no physical sign of battle because these are the earthly representatives of celestial bodies. The true warrior kings were guises of the planets Mars, Mercury and the Moon (GKS). It is with these bodies where we will find the illusive 'battle' scars. Take a look at the surfaces of Mars, Mercury and the Moon, they are all pot marked with millions of impact craters. Especially the Moon, the Moon has to be singled out for it has been pummelled by space debris over and over again. It bears the hallmarks of numerous cosmic battles, or as I contend, the pharaonic wars as carved for posterity on numerous temples walls along the Nile.

Description: A section of the North facade of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak depicting Seti I (Mercury) returning with captives and leading chariot attacks on the Libyans - cosmic wars?
Photo: Credit Jon Bosworth.

Why bother to march out and battle at all?

Egypt was one of the richest nations in the ancient world; the Nile's abundance deemed it the envy of its neighbours. The Egyptians had everything they required to survive and live a comfortable life, so why risk life and limb by marching out across blistering deserts to engage the enemy hundreds of miles away when everything you needed was back home? What was the point? Are we expected to believe the driving force a behind such adventures was a bit of booty? Surely, as an agrarian society, working the fields in order to survive was more important? What of the power vacuum left behind when pharaoh's army was away for months on end? Tuthmosis III and the Battle of Megiddo takes this king away from Egypt for at least 10 months (Allowing approximately three months to march there and back and the recorded seven month siege). Talk about leaving the back door open! Why not just stay putt and defend the abundant wealth afforded by the Nile?

The afterlife.

The Egyptians were obsessed with the afterlife and to be guaranteed a place in the next world it was essential for the deceased to be mummified, an elaborate process involving sacred rituals and typically lasting 70 days. As well as mummification, and again to further ensure a life of immortality it was absolutely imperative for the deceased to be buried on Egyptian soil. Emphasis has to be placed on this fundamental belief; it lay at the bedrock of Egyptian religion, the hundreds of thousands of interred mummies bear testament to this.
Here we have a serious conundrum, inasmuch, are we expected to believe the Egyptians risked their place in the next world, a life of immortality by undertaking arduous military campaigns hundreds of miles away across deadly terrain? What if they died en route? What of the thousands of soldiers killed in action? Where are they? Were they interred on foreign lands? This is not possible, in that it goes against the fundamental conviction that if you were not embalmed and buried in Egypt, then you were not eligible for a life of immortality in the hereafter. I cannot stress this point enough; to be buried outside Egypt deemed immortality absolutely null and void!
But are we then expected to believe hundreds of rotting corpses were transported back to Egypt some 600 miles across dry arid scorching hot deserts? Even to the uninitiated, this not only doesn't make sense, in ancient times it has to be impossible.
"Little is known about how the Egyptians prepared themselves for dealing with expected casualties…"
It is my contention the Egyptians rarely strayed from the relative safety of the Nile Valley, certainly not vast armies of men with the king at the head marching across distant lands, there was no impending need. Sure, they carried out trading and mining expeditions beyond Egypt's borders and there is no doubt they mined for certain coloured rock (black granite) and turquoise in the Sinai. They also undoubtedly explored as far as they dared, or as conditions and the climate allowed them to, including following the Nile (safe) south, deep into Nubian territory (pretty normal behaviour really).
Furthermore, in veneration of the 'sacred' battles fought by the celestial god kings they sent out small groups to mark the astral location (as near as possible) by carving honorary victory stela (carved stone), recounting the bravery and incredible deeds undertaken by their celestial counterparts. There is evidence to suggest this occurred on a number of occasions, given the GKS isn't this just as you would expect?
But all of the above expeditions involved small numbers; small self-surviving groups who could negotiate inhospitable terrain, accomplish their mission and return to the relative safety of the Nile. It certainly did not involve thousands of troops marching out across deadly terrain with the king at the helm. If such distant campaigns were undertaken, you would think, at the very least, and to save marching out again and again to the same place the Egyptians would leave behind a controlling army or garrison - alas, even this was not done. This is because planetary bodies rarely remained stationary in the heavens, if they did, this was seen as a siege (Image above: symbolic repsentation of wars in the heavens)

Irrefutable evidence.

We will now turn our attention to what I consider overwhelming evidence in support of the GKS - the archaeological evidence, more specifically the lack of it. Inasmuch, in the face of the many hundreds of military expeditions carried out by the pharaohs archaeologists have been unable to verify ANY of the events recounted in Egyptian records. This situation exists even though the location of many of Egypt's conflicts are known. We would expect to find the remains of swords, arrow heads, battle axes, chariot parts, amour, and more importantly battle-scarred human remains or mass graves. However, there is a distinct lack of archaeological evidence and no data to support the existence of ancient battlefields. Upon close scrutiny, it becomes very obvious that the wars and battles of the kings exist in 'sacred' words alone - no archaeological evidence exists for them as ever having taken place. That is of course, unless we look up and take into account the GKS.

We will consider briefly one of the best documented battles of the ancient world, Ramesses II and the Battle of Kadesh. We have more accounts of this battle than any other from ancient times. It was carved on numerous temple walls. History states that Ramesses led 20,000 infantry into Syro-Palestine and fearlessly fought and defeated 40,000 Hittites (according to Egyptian inscriptions). Detailed maps exist which show the exact location of Kadesh near the Orontes River in Syria. They include diagrams, complete with arrows, which show how the battle was played out. Modern photographs and details of Kadesh can be found here
However, despite an abundance of information it seems the Battle of Kadesh existed in sacred words only as the exact location of Kadesh has yet to be found - there is no archaeological evidence revealing its location and if any battles took place there. I find it perplexing that so many books and TV documentaries cover 'The Battle of Kadesh' and yet none are backed up by archaeological evidence.

Moreover, the record shows Kadesh was the site of many military campaigns. Many pharaohs before and after Ramesses fought bloody battles there; these wars totaled many hundreds of thousands of men i.e. Ramesses II's army of 20,000 soldiers plus 40,000 Hittites totaled 60,000 men alone. Yet it seems they left nothing behind. There isn't a museum in the world that houses battle implements or killed in action soldiers which can irrefutably linked to any battles fought at Kadesh.

A prediction; the location of Kadesh will never be found unless people begin to look up and take into account the GKS.
Some may say absence of evidence is not proof enough and believe that we're just not looking in the right place and one day battle strewn Kadesh will be found. Although unlikely given the scope and information available, it is possible. So let us turn our attention to the scene of many a major battle and a location where archaeologists have been excavating for years.

Megiddo (Armageddon)

Megiddo is one of the most fabled and fought over pieces of real estates in the ancient world; at least 34 battles are known to have taken place here (the majority involving the Egyptians). Eighteen consecutive campaigns attributed to Tuthmosis III (Egypt's Napoleon) alone and yet no corroboratory archaeological evidence exists.

Thutmose III: The Battle of Megiddo

To put this into some kind of context, Megiddo is an location where hundreds of thousands of soldiers engaged in numerous battles over a period of 3,000 years i.e. thousands of chariots, battle axes, spears, bows and arrows, the carnage, dead soldiers, etc. etc. and yet no archaeological evidence remains to corroborate them as ever taking place - nothing. We have an abundance of written documentation but - NO CRIME SCENE! This is despite the fact that archaeologists have been digging there for decades.
I wrote to N Franlin the coordinator of the Megiddo expedition (Tel Aviv University) and politely asked "where's the archaeological evidence for any of the battles fought by the Pharaohs at Megiddo?" In the absence of ANY evidence whatsoever, this is the reply I received.
Chariot parts
"Chariots were made mainly of wood and leather. Neither medium survives for long. Metal parts were small and were either collected and re-used or deteriorated. Ceremonial chariots e.g. Tutmose's chariot would have had gold decoration -- those chariots were collected as booty and also re-used/re-cycled."
Weapons
"Always collected and re-used. Nothing went to waste. They were better at recyling than we are in the modern world!"

Dead bodies on the battlefield.
a) They are either left and deteriorate quickly in the rather acid based limestone derived soil prevalent in the area. If anything ever survives it is often a lone tooth!
b) Bodies are retrieved by the army that sent those soldiers if the victor and buried.
c) Bodies are retrieved by the opposing army if the victor and displayed and/or mutilated to show how strong the victor is.
With the greatest respect to N Franklin, the answers provided above make absolutely no sense at all. Common sense deems the whole thing is impossible and nonsensical. How can 34 major battles involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers spanning some 3,000 years completely disappear off the face of the Earth? If it is known that the ancients "… were better at recyling than we are in the modern world!" then, what's the point in digging then? It was even found that Megiddo wasn't even fortified! How can this be when the pharaoh Tuthmosis III was supposed to have laid siege to the city for 7 months?
To prove that the Egyptians were not "better at recyling than we are in the modern world" we only need visit the site of Ramesses' II ancient city, Per-Ramesses (modern day Qantir).
Recent excavations here revealed amongst other items hundreds of broken stone carved 'knobs.' These were later identified as chariots parts, they form part of the harness and can be seen on the ceremonial chariots of Tutankhamun in the Cairo Museum. The chariot parts were not difficult to find, they were found just below the surface and surprisingly within just three days of digging (Source; M Bietak. Documentary Lost City of the Ancients). Although most were in bits many intact 'knobs' were also found. They even unearthed a complete horses bit, to date the only one of its kind.

Point to consider;

How difficult was it to pick these artefacts up? To my knowledge they were found around the location of stables (as you would expect). Nowhere near the mayhem of battle – it is with ease these parts could be collected. They were not; they were left where they fell because as broken stone parts they were useless, impossible to recycle. All things normal, it is this sort of artefact and other similar items associated with battle that should be strewn about all over the site of Megiddo ; there should be loads of battle artefacts. As we have seen there are none. What of the fully working 'knobs' and the horses bit? I thought the ancient were super efficient at recycling? The finds at Per Ramesses proves that this was not so.

These finds merely show us show the Egyptians were pretty much the same as us when it came to recycling. Broken parts of machinery were simply discarded with complete working parts occasionally getting lost or mislaid. This would include the occasional horses' bits, although none, it seems, at Megiddo!

Thutmose I (Moon) "He Brought the Ends of the Earth Under his Domain."

"Re (Sun) himself established me, I was dignified with the diadems which were upon his head, his serpent-diadem, rested upon “my forehead he satisfied me with all his glories; I was sated with the counsels of the gods, like Horus, when he counted his body at the house of my father, Amun. I was presented with the dignities of a god, with ------------- my diadems." (Breasted)

The dead soldiers.

Egypt had two basic obsessions, the 'next world' and 'warfare.' There is overwhelming evidence to support Egypt's obsession the former with numerous mummies disinterred on a regular basis, but there is no evidence to support Egypt's other obsession - that of war. The lack of archaeological evidence is very important and provides overwhelming support for the GKS. We will consider this in the light of the lack of human remains.
It is of course impossible to calculate exactly how many men died in battle, however, I have worked out that over a period of 3,000 years, the very least we could expect is well in excess of over 300,000 men killed in action (see book). This is a very conservative figure; the number is, in all probability much, much higher. Also, this doesn't include the enemy dead, so if the annals are anything to go the figure would be ten times this amount i.e. running into the millions. Remembering, the Egyptians smote the enemy with ruthless efficiency and never lost a battle.

How could so many men disappear of the face of the Earth?
Partridge in an attempt to explain the whereabouts of the fallen in his book 'Fighting Pharaohs' proposes that the Egyptian soldiers were indeed buried close to the battle field:
‘On campaign, most soldiers who were killed in action were probably buried close to the place they died.' (Partridge, 2002, p 126)
Partridge here fails to take into account that to step outside Egypt was a step outside any chance of immortality; the afterlife would become nil and void, and besides we return to, where's the evidence?
Although slightly contradictory Partridge continues.
"We do not know where most soldiers were buried, especially those who died away from Egypt . Small burial sites have been found at some of the fortifications. But it must be presumed that those of high status would have had there bodies returned home for burial. (ibid)
Points of note, the tentative "we do not know," "probably" & "presumed" are used in the above. With so many battles shouldn't the archaeological evidence be overwhelming? Equal perhaps to that of Egypt's other obsession – the afterlife?

To single out the following sentence.

"Small burial sites have been found at some of the fortifications."

Partridge gives no reference here, however isn't it common sense to presume that if they were in anyway connected to any of Egypt's major campaigns that he would have followed this up and, more importantly archaeologists and Egyptologists would beware of this by now. Essentially, this would be a major discovery and Partridge would be verifying his own work, but he doesn't.
Perhaps archeologists aren't looking in the right place and the fallen were buried somewhere close to the battle?

As discussed, to step outside Egypt was a step outside immortality, so to be buried outside Egypt goes against everything the Egyptians lived for, literally. So, this is a none starter especially when taking into account the 70 day mummification process. However, for argument sake, let us assume they were buried close to the battle as some believe.

"The dead had to be buried close to where they fell which was generally in foreign soil, a fate many Egyptians dreaded."
The question remains, where are they? In dying for king and country, no doubt they were, at the very least given a decent burial along with full military honours, but nowhere outside Egypt will you find remains of Egyptian soldiers. No mass war graves, no carved stela, no cenotaphs or otherwise inscribed with "killed in action… fighting the vile Asiatics" - nothing! A fact epitomised at Megiddo.

What of the enemy dead?

"Fallen enemies were often mutilated and their corpses left to the crows, vultures and other scavengers" (ibid).

If found, they shouldn't be difficult to identify in that the Egyptians apparently cut of their right hands (& in many cases penises) in order to count them (why not simply mark them with a stick? One, two, three…). Although highly unlikely, are we to presume the victors cleared these up and buried them in mass graves, or perhaps there was always just enough survivors to carry out this gruesome task, either way, if this was done at Megiddo, it has to be the most incredible clear-up operation ever known to man. To reiterate, no enemy remains, no Egyptian remains, no battle artefacts, no mass graves, no memorials, etc, etc.

I consider the lack of archaeological support irrefutable evidence in support of the GKS, but how am I to prove this? Perhaps I should join the archaeologists at Megiddo, dig yet another hole and reiterate what they've been saying for a hundred years or more - "look ..., nothing!" Or perhaps I should appeal to people's common sense?


Archaeological evidence from Egypt.
I don't see any point in readdressing the possibility of transporting thousands of decomposing dead soldiers back to Egypt, given the scorching climate and the distances involved I deem this absolutely impossible. Further, who in their right mind would undertake such a gruesome task?
Moreover, the archaeological evidence doesn't support this, insofar as, nowhere in Egypt (or beyond) do we find mass war graves, cemeteries, or even cenotaphs that correlate with the many hundreds of 'scared' battles recorded on temple walls throughout the Nile Valley.
It seems the veneration of those killed in action just doesn't exist in Egypt or beyond its borders - no monuments, cenotaphs, memorials or otherwise inscribed "here lies, killed in action, fighting for king and country at Megiddo" – nothing!

To say this is odd would be an understatement; what of the families of those who died in combat, wouldn't they insist on the construction of some kind of memorial and cenotaph in honour of their fallen, perhaps even setting aside days of remembrance? Apparently not.

Surely, if such conflicts did indeed take place here on earth and not above as I contend, there should be thousands of wars graves, and if the fallen were not brought back, the very least we could expect is a few hundred cenotaphs or inscribed monuments. Perhaps evidence enough to equal Egypt's other obsession, the next world.

That said, as stated earlier, the Egyptians undoubtedly fought battles and there is some scant evidence to support this. All can be explained in the context of the GKS


Sixty Egyptian soldiers found in Deir el-Bahari

"A mass-tomb found in Deir el-Bahari contained 60 bodies of slain Egyptian soldiers who perhaps lost their lives in Nubia . That these soldiers were given a burial so near the king's own funerary monument, demonstrates how much importance was attached to them.
This is a very, very rare discovery, to date the only location in Egypt where we have dead soldiers numbering more than one! It is presumed these soldiers died fighting for Mentuhotep, this maybe so but there are no inscriptions to verify this. No inscriptions honouring these apparent loyal subjects. Certainly nothing to link the soldiers with any of Egypt's scared battles. If these soldiers did take part in one of Egypt's recorded battles, as presumed then we have to ask, where are the other many thousands of dead soldiers from Egypt's other wars? We have millions upon millions of mummies verifying Egypt's obsession with the afterlife but only one mass warrior tomb, which incidentally, is dated to the Middle Kingdom, so we haven't even reached the height of Egypt's military might of the New Kingdom. It doesn't add up; there should be thousands of similar mass warrior tombs.
The rarity of this find correlates with my premise that the earthly Egyptians engaged in conflicts and skirmishes (and possibly civil war) but on a scale nowhere near, and totally separate to anything recorded in the sacred annals. These were reserved for the celestial kings.


RARE Egyptian soldier

The fact that the above is a rare discovery is proven by a recent article from the National Geographic News.

Rare Egyptian "Warrior" Tomb Found.\

The article speaks for itself, however, I've extracted a few points of note.

"An unusual…"

"…may contain the mummy of an ancient warrior…"

"The discovery of burials belonging to soldiers and mercenaries, who had elevated status in the wartime society, are even rarer…"

"We don't know about the origin of Iker," Galán said. "We don't even know if he was Egyptian, Nubian, or Libyan."

And of course, the heading "rare." RARE, because there is a gigantic void when it comes to unearthing Egypt's deceased warrior soldiers. We have many dead kings (without a scratch), but we do not have the 'killed in action' soldiers.

I would also add there are no inscriptions linking Iker with any major battle and there's no evidence to suggest he was KIA. If it turns up that he fell fighting for the king, this would be a major discovery, the only one of its kind. But it shouldn't be!
Given Egypt's obsession with warfare and given all things normal the above article should read something along the lines of "Yet Another Egyptian Soldier Found" or perhaps "Another Cache of Soldiers Found." As we can see the opposite couldn't be more true!




A drawing of the reliefs at the Temple of Luxor depicting the Battle of Kadesh. The bottom register shows Ramesses/Mars II (shown larger = planetary body) single-handedly charging the enemy. A practice any modern day commander would cringe at. Despite our history books containing very detailed accounts of this, 'battle of battles' the location of Kadesh has yet to found! A Prediction on which my theory stands. The Battle of Kadesh as with all Pharaonic battles will never be archeologically verified because they were all wars fought in the heavens. (Ramesses = "Re (the red sun) has fashioned him" i.e. the red Mars).


Seqenenre Tao

The nearest we get to a high ranking official meeting with a brutal death is a Theban Price called Seqenenre Tao (see photo).

Seqenenre Tao met a violent death this is without doubt. He had apparently been stabbed behind the ear, his cheek and nose had been smashed with a mace, and smacked above the right eye with a battle axe. It has been suggested Seqenenre was probably killed during battle with the Hyksos (Shepherd kings).

There are a few problems with this, firstly although his head is bashed in his arms are in one piece, this suggests he may not have died in battle (certainly not battle ready) because the tendency is to protect yourself by raising your arms when blows are reigning down, resulting in broken or lacerated arms. Seqenenre shows signs of neither, so this means either the first blow rendered him incapacitated resulting in death or we have to look for alternative possible circumstances surrounding his death. It has been noted by some experts that his wounds show signs of healing, suggesting he may have recuperated somewhat only to eventually succumb to his wounds. Due to the angle of the blows some have even suggested Tao probably died lying on his side while sleeping.

It is merely an assumption by Egyptologists that Seqenenre died fighting the Hyksos (Shepherd kings) as there are no inscriptions to verify this. You would think if Seqenenre ventured north to engage the Hyksos at the very least he'd be 'battle ready.' While we're on the subject, we know practically nothing about the Hyksos; this is because they were rouge, unrecognisable 'shepherd moons' dominating a chaotic sky.

We are faced with the same basic questions raised above; if Seqenenre was slain fighting the Hyksos, then where's his loyal KIA infantry? The expulsion of the Hyksos apparently took place within Egypt's borders, so here we have no need to transport rotting corpses across deadly terrain; the Egyptians merely have to recover the fallen, mummify them and bury them with full military honours. Here we have a chance for the archaeological evidence to correlate with the written word. But alas it just doesn't happen. No fallen soldiers (Egyptians or otherwise) from the time of the Hyksos.

Ahmose son of Ebana

Although there exists no slain soldiers that can be conclusively linked to Egypt's annuls of war, we do have some apparent first hand accounts of Egyptians either claiming to have fought in battle or scribes recounting certain events (Note; none killed in action).

One such account comes to us via the tomb of Amose, son of Ebana.
Ahmose, son of Ebana, was an officer in the Egyptian army during the end of the Seventeenth Dynasty (the Second Intermediate period) and the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty (the New Kingdom ). He fought at Avaris, Sharuhen (in Palestine) and in Nubia in the service of Seqenenre Tao II, Kamose, Ahmose I and Tuthmosis I. Ahmose received many honours for his bravery in battle and recounted his deeds on the wall of his tomb.
Same question as above, where's Ahmose's fallen comrades?

Ahmose wasn't killed in action; this is surprising considering how many pharaohs he fought under. He must have been about 60 in his last battle, an incredible feat as the average life span was about 40 years (some say 30).

Ahmose's tomb inscriptions and other similar battle biographies are as a result of humans venerating their celestial doubles (kas) and have little, if anything to do with events here on earth (GKS). The skies of earth were awash with bodies perceived as courtiers, viziers, priests wearing leopard skins (similar to Jupiter's pizza coloured moon Io - photo on right), fans bearers (Also Io's fan bearing attribute; left), nobles, concubines, overseers and other dignitaries. And of course, masses upon masses of trailing boulders, or as perceived by the Egyptians, the infantry. Ahmose, I believe was once a large Moon of Mars, hence, a Crew Commander.


" I have been rewarded with gold seven times in the sight of the whole land…"
"Then the gold of valour was given me, and my captives were given to me as slaves."

There are a number of references the king rewarding certain loyal subjects with gold, be it gold rings or gold collars. This is Mars belching out enormous great rings of scolding hot 'golden' lava from its many volcanoes. These landing on close proximity moon sized bodies or in this case Ahmose, son of Ebana. The 'captives' reference is Ahmose, as a moon, gravitationally capturing smaller boulders as he and the pharaoh (Mars) heroically crash headlong into vast clouds of enemy debris.

A CHALLENGE!

I would like to challenge Egyptologists and archaeologists to provide substantial archaeological evidence for any of the major Pharaonic battles that are supposed to have occurred in ancient times. I am not referring to a few broken bones, the occasional sword, a battle axe or even a few broken chariots. The Egyptians fought many battles over a 3,000 year period and therefore there should be an abundance of archaeological evidence including the bodies of tens of thousands of dead soldiers.

This really is the crux of the matter - Egyptian or otherwise, where are the hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed in action from ancient times?

I can provide evidence from the surfaces of Mars, Mercury and the Moon as these heavily cratered planets provide the real legacy of pharaonic battles.

This is a crucial point because if I am wrong, if concrete evidence is provided, my theory would fall apart and that would be the end of the GKS. I am prepared to take this risk because I am confident that my theory as presented is accurate and entirely correct.
I wonder how many other 'alternative' authors would be brave enough to set such a challenge!


Update: 12th Aug 2008
The above 'challenge' includes the Greek Pharaoh Alexander the Great and his conquest of the ancient world.

The Battle of Gaugamela. Forget the Greek propaganda and story telling, where's the archaeological evidence to support any of battles attributed to Alexander the Great? To be precise, where's the KIA soldiers? Where does it say - "here lies (name…) killed in action fighting for his beloved god (son of the sun) Alexander." What of the enemy, where's the hundred of thousands of soldiers slain by Alexander and his army - where's the thousands of mass graves, cenotaphs or otherwise? I could go on and ask exactly where is Alexander the Great buried?

20th Aug.

For those that believe the archaeological evidence for ancient battles is not forthcoming because the ancients were somehow the Houdini's of recycling. In other words the dearth of battle artefacts is a result of the victors gathering up every single item and reusing them.

Further research reveals this to be nonsense.

The words of Arrian, a 2nd century historian writing on the first major battle of Alexander the Great - the Battle of Issus.

"By order of Alexander all the dead (Alexander's men) were buried with their arms and equipment the day after the battle."

So much for recycling!

One would presume Alexander adopted the same burial practice throughout his numerous campaigns. So here we have thousands upon thousands of dead soldiers interred with full military equipment at KNOWN ancient battlefields (this doesn't even include the enemy dead).

The question remains - where are they?

Time to dust of them metal detectors!

Alexander, "beloved of Amun (sky god)," "chosen by Re" (literally), was just one of the many names given to either Mars or Mercury as they were named and renamed many times over as divine kings of earth.


I put forward my idea of the nonexistent pharaonic battles to John Anthony West (Sphinx dating fame). This is what he had to say.

"On the point of the mostly non-existent battles, I quite agree. Perhaps our one point of agreement. There were surely battles of some sort, somewhere, but those endlessly repetitive scenes (extending down into Ptolemaic times when they most certainly were not taking place) though perhaps based initially on an actual battle or two, are symbolic; the King (forces of light) vanquishing the forces of darkness, the precondition of entry into the sacred space of the sanctuary."

I wonder why he took this stance - could it be he is actually listening to the archaeological evidence, more specifically the lack of it?



I assert that the archetypal image of ancient god kings smiting their enemies, which can be found in scenes from Egypt through to the fertile-crescent and Anatolia, are time honoured recordings of battles in the heavens and have little if anything to do with events here on earth. And, although I've suspected for some time that some Egyptologists do actually question the authenticity of Egypt's countless battles it difficult to get anything in writing. However, a colleague of mine (Jno) has brought the following to my attention. As can clearly be seen, some experts do actually take the stance that a number of Pharaonic battles at least, "DID NOT TAKE PLACE !"

"The visual depiction of Egypt 's enemies and their role became so prevalent that it is difficult to distinguish in the archaeological and textual sources between purely ritualistic and rhetorical references to foreigners and genuine historical records. Repeatedly, we find examples of battles, and king's smiting enemies that in fact, did not take place, but were mere copies of earlier scenes."

"The reliefs in the Old Kingdom mortuary temples of Sahure at Abusir and Pepi II at Saqqara , as well as the Late Period temple of Taharqa at Kawa, include stock scenes of a Libyan chief being smitten by the pharaoh, while the victim's wife and children beg for mercy. However, the personal names for the Libyans in all three scenes are repetitions and therefore suggest that these reliefs did not actually record historical events, but were rather an elaborate icon of Kingship."
the Egyptian soldiers down to the New Kingdom era are shown only with bow, spear, sword, mace and shield. They have no helmets and no body armour. Soldiers thus equipped will simply not rush into battle to face wounds inflicted by the spear, the sword or the axe. Also, for nearly fifteen hundred years image of the pharaoh smiting enemies with the mace remained virtually unchanged, of which Keegan infers a highly ritualised form of warfare among the ancient Egyptians.

As an analogy he points to the flower wars of the Aztecs. In these strange encounters, Aztecs and neighbouring armies would converge on an agreed site but exchange captives rather than fight a true battle. The armies met, there was much provado and shouting and perhaps an individual challenge or two. Then the field between the two armies was scattered with red petals to represent blood (hence the flowers wars) and the captives were exchanged to be sacrificed later.

Perhaps this is the meaning of the smiting Pharaoh fixed image. It represents a ritual of execution following none lethal battles. And so Keegan concludes, the people of Egypt over a period of fourteen hundreds may very well have been spared the reality of wars other people later experienced it elsewhere altogether."
My question remains, did the 'sacred' ancient battles take place or not? If so, why weren't the many hundreds of thousands of fallen memorialised? The criteria seems to based on the quantity of literal sources, inasmuch, the more accounts we have of a particular battle, then this somehow deems it to have taken place. This is very poor logic, almost 'cherry picking' as to what did or didn't occur. Ancient battles should be verified by good old fashioned irrefutable archaeological evidence, but they are not.

Most 'alternative' writers such as myself can be easily dismissed by simply turning the subject round to hard evidence, and yet, here I am, turning the tables and asking scholars for hard evidence!