Egypt’s confrontation with Persia came to a head with the invasion of Egypt in 525 bc, which led to the defeat and capture of Psamtek 111 by Cambyses (525-522 bc) at the Battle of Pelusium. Cambyses’ activities in Egypt present a totally contradictory image in our sources, the comments in classical authors being extremely unfavourable, whereas the Egyptian evidence depicts a ruler anxious to avoid offending Egyptian susceptibilities and presenting himself as an Egyptian king in all respects. This aspect comes through particularly strongly in the inscriptions on the statue of Udjahorresnet, where at least three major points emerge; in the first place, Cambyses had assumed at least the forms of Egyptian kingship; secondly, he was perfectly prepared to work with and promote native Egyptians to assist in government; and, thirdly, he showed a deep respect for native Egyptian religion. This latter point also emerges in his burial of an Apis bull with all the ancient rituals.
None of this prevented the outbreak of a revolt in Egypt when Cambyses died in 522 BC, but the independence gained was short lived.
Since Darius (522-486 bc) was able to regain complete control of the country in 519/18 bc. With this reign, Egypt settled into a pattern the beginnings of which are already clearly visible in the reign of Cam-byses. The head of the government was the Great King whose position was legitimized for Egyptian purposes by the only means possible— that is, by defining him as pharaoh on the same terms as a native Egyptian ruler. Cambyses’ policy of massaging Egyptian ideological susceptibilities also continued under Darius both in religious matters and administration; the building or restoration of temples was a prominent feature—the medical school at Sais was restored, the building (or rebuilding) of the temple of Amun of Hibis in the Kharga Oasis was begun, and work was carried out at Busiris and the Serapeum at Saqqara, and possibly also at Elkab. Darius is also credited with a programme of law reform.
However, not all Persian kings showed the same delicate touch, and Xerxes (486-465 bc) received a particularly bad press for his impious disregard of temple privilege. As for administration, the Persians, like the Ptolemies after them, had the good sense to realize that the Egyptian system for running the country was the best that could be devised, and maintained it with only the minimum of Persian administrative overlay needed to integrate the province into the Achaemenid imperial organization. This primarily amounted to the insertion of a satrap at the top. The satrap, who was effectively a viceroy, was drawn from the cream of the Persian aristocracy, but his activities were none the less carefully monitored by the imperial network of inspectors or informers holding titles such as ‘king’s eye’ or ‘listeners’. He ran the central administration through a chancellory that was controlled by a chancellor assisted by a ‘scribe’. The language used in the chancellory was Aramaic, a situation that required the employment of a staff of Egyptian translators. Below this level, the Persians showed a marked disinclination to innovate. The legal system remained Egyptian, and we can identify a series of Egyptians occupying positions of importance, if not power, throughout the period.
At the same time, we can see an uncompromising determination to keep firm control of the province, a policy that did not stop short of inserting non-Egyptians into Egypt and Egyptian institutions, as and when the Persians thought fit. They also ensured a substantial military presence for the maintenance of external and internal security, and Egypt was also expected to play its full part as a satrapy of the Persian empire. Between c.510 and 497 bc Darius completed the construction of a canal begun under Nekau II running from the Pelusiac branch of the Nile through the Wadi Tumilat to the Bitter Lakes and the Red Sea, a project that was clearly part of a policy of locking Egypt into the imperial network of communication. Not only were Egyptian craftsmen used for building operations as far afield as Persia, but also the military resources of the country were exploited to the full to advance Persian imperial expansion—Egyptians were involved in the naval assault on Miletus that brought the Ionian Revolt to an end in 494 bc, and Egyptian military and naval resources played a major role in the great assaults of Darius and Xerxes on Greece in 490 and 480 bc. The Egyptians supplied ropes for Xerxes’ bridge of boats across the Hellespont and assisted in its construction, while the fleet of Xerxes used against the mainland Greek states in 480/79 bc contained 200 Egyptian triremes under the command of Achaemenes, the brother of Xerxes himself, as against the 300 supplied by the Phoenicians, indicating that Egypt was no mean naval power at this period. This contingent performed particularly well at Artemisium, where it captured five Greek ships with their crews, although this record does not seem to have been maintained at Salamis. Finally, we should note that the fiscal obligations of a satrapy were also laid upon Egypt, but these were not unduly oppressive.
Overall, the impression created by such sources as we have is that the Persian regime in Egypt was far from oppressive, and more than a few Egyptians found it perfectly possible to come to terms with it. Indeed there is indisputable evidence of a slow Egyptianization of the conquerors themselves. Nevertheless, there are obvious areas where tensions might arise. While the Great King might be presented for ideological purposes as pharaoh, he was an absentee landlord based in Iran and could not fail to appear to many as a token pharaoh only. Secondly, the conquest by the Persians did not allay the ambitions of native dynasts to rule the country, and they would have watched carefully for any opportunity to assert Egyptian independence and realize their own ambitions. Furthermore, Egyptian xenophobia, highlighted by Herodotus in the fifth century bc, will hardly have promoted integration between Persians and Egyptians, and this could be aggravated by religious considerations, as illustrated by an episode in the reign of Darius II (424-405 bc) involving mercenaries settled at Elephantine and the local population. Here we find the priests of the ram-headed god Khnum locked in a conflict with Jewish mercenaries that ended in the destruction of the temple of lao (Yahweh). Given such flashpoints, it is hardly surprising that the history of the First Persian Period is punctuated by revolts. However, all these efforts came ultimately to Nought until, c.404 bc, the younger Amyrtaios successfully raised the flag of insurrection to inaugurate the last extended period of independence under native rulers that pharaonic civilization was to enjoy.
World History
