The nonexistent battles of the Pharoahs - a challenge to all

[The Aten]

Hi All,

Overwhelming support for my synopsis 'The God King Scenario' (GKS) comes to us via the archaeological evidence, more specifically the lack of it, as follows…

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 Egypt’s numerous 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 - that is of course, unless we look up and take into account the GKS.

I've written a short essay on the above http://www.gks.uk.com/gks7/

Gary Gilligan

[Grey Cloud]

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.

Try using an atlas. You don't go near the Sinai desert to get from Egypt to Syria.
The troops would have been supplied by sea. This is what Xerxes did when he invaded Greece. He also built a pontoon bridge across the Hellespont.
The Persians invaded and conquered Egypt without going near the 'scorching hot Sinai desert'. Alexander conquered Egypt and Persia and entered Afghanistan and India.
Until the C20th nobody kept an army free from disease.

Re the absence of archaeological evidence: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Occam's razoer: If you hear hoof-beats, think horses not zebras.

[The Aten]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
.

Equally, just because its written down doesn't make it so. But, look, rather than taking apart certain fringe elements of my essay may I suggest we concentrate on my main point... Megiddo.

The site of Megiddo is KNOWN to have staged at least 34 battles involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers over a period of 3,000 years. Further, archaeologists have been digging there for a hundred years or so. They are still currently excavating there. But they’ve found nothing to verify the battles of the Pharaohs. Megiddo, a site of 3,000 years of absolute bloody mayhem and yet no Crime Scene! This speaks volumes, especially when taking into account how archaeologists found hundreds of broken chariot parts within only three days of digging at Per Ramesses.

Even to a reasonable mind this doesn’t make sense and questions should be asked here.

To reiterate my basic question, where are the hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers from any of the battles fought at Megiddo?

Regards

G Gillligan

[Grey Cloud]

You have not answered any of the points in my post. You are now claiming that this is a 'fringe element' of your essay but on the website it is an integral part of it.

The site of Megiddo is KNOWN to have staged at least 34 battles involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers over a period of 3,000 years.

As a student of military history for 35 years or so, I would be very interested in seeing a list of 34 battles featuring Megiddo.

To reiterate my basic question, where are the hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers from any of the battles fought at Megiddo?

The obvious answer is: turned to dust. It's what happens in the desert.
Where is the equipment from the First Wrold War battle? The dead, presumably being in military cemetaries. Or did this battle also take place in the heavens and involve Mars?
Where are the tens of thousands of Roman and Celtic dead in Britain? Where are the broken weapons etc?
Battlefields are cleared after a battle. Weapons and equipment are collected and re-used or recycled.

Equally, just because its written down doesn't make it so.

Especially when it is written down by Velikovsky.

[nick c]

Equally, just because its written down doesn't make it so.

Especially when it is written down by Velikovsky.

Tsk, tsk...Grey Cloud, you were making some good points until you wrote that, you are way off base with that statement! Perhaps you need to take the time to actually read what Velikovsky wrote, instead of commenting on what you think he wrote. I don't necessarily agree with many of the specifics of what Velikovsky put forth, but you do him a great disservice when you attack him using dishonest arguments. You owe him an apology, there are many legitimate grounds to dispute Velikovsky's interpretations, but I thought that you were above using such blatant [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man]straw man[/url2] arguments in order to deliver a cheap shot.
(Please ask for forgiveness immediately, lest Zeus hurl a thunderbolt toward you )
I am sure that G. Gilligan would be the first to admit that this is his own theory not Velikovsky's. Velikovsky accepted these accounts of battles and wars by Egyptian pharaohs as REAL historical events. He wrote about them as such throughout his Ages in Chaos series. (That doesn't exclude the possibility that he may have thought that there were contemporary disturbances taking place in the sky.)
Velikovsky did not necessarily believe that every myth or ancient document had origins in celestial occurrences. See Oedipus and Akhnaton the thesis of which is that the Oedipus myth was simply a Greek recounting of the politically tumultuous reign of that 18th dynasty heretic Pharaoh.
My personal opinion is that often times such stories, whether from mythological sources or historical documents (such as stele,) have meaning that is complex and multileveled. An original celestial myth can be adapted to a latter actual story or local event, characters and sequences are manipulated for dramatic effect. Similarly, disruptive events in the sky, become anthropomorphosized and somewhat removed from the original celestial happenings; local embellishments are added, names changed, etc. This is why a systematic comparative approach is needed, looking for common threads, repetative examples of impossible combinations, and strange motifs in otherwise unrelated or even contradictory stories.
Memories of such celestial events and the associated destructive trauma inflicted upon humankind would be compulsively reenacted on Earth, not coincidently, much like actors in a scripted play, adhering to already established archetypal motifs. Each side would prepare for battle praying to the planet God(s), making sacrifices, hoping to gain favor in order to smite the evil enemy. The event would be depicted by the victor in a parallel manner or reenactment of the original celestial theomachy or some aspect thereof, the victorious king proving that he is indeed the descendent or chosen of the original creator king, having vanquished the enemy, who is portrayed as totally evil (having non human qualities and only interested in disrupting the proper order of universe.) Remnants of this behaviour are still with us today, in ancient times the similarities to the events in the sky would have, presumably, been more pronounced, and I cannot discount the possibility that some historically reported battles may have been fought by armies on Earth while corresponding celestial battles of the gods, were taking place in the sky. I feel that there is good evidence that the solar system did not achieve the present order until some time in the early 1st millenium BCE.

Grey Cloud, you are taking an unwarranted shot at Velikovsky by equating his theories with Mr. Gilligan's, when Velikovsky would most probably have agreed with you on the topic of this thread, and not Mr. Gilligan.
Mr.Gilligan is entitled to his "mad ideas," like the rest of us!
I too, don't agree with Mr. Gilligan on this point, but certainly his thesis is, in principle, potentially falsifiable. Is that not what science is all about?

Nick C

[mague]

We cant assume war has always been brutal. Looking at native tribes or how animals fight wars (wars, not hunting for food) i am quite sure that ancient wars have been much more mental then physical. Just as animals or native tribes. They pose, show muscles and weapons. Sometimes some blood is flowing, but there are usually no casualties.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Nick,
I thought I might take a bit of flak for the swipe at Velikovsky.
I read Velikovsky in the seventies after having cut my teeth on Von Daniken. I recently read through all the stuff over at varchive.org. (I'm not, by the way, comparing v. Daniken to Velikovsky).
I can't buy the collective amensia bit, or any of the Freudian/Jungian stuff (and I've read them too). I don't subscribe to Darwinism either.
Nick wrote:

My personal opinion is that often times such stories, whether from mythological sources or historical documents (such as stele,) have meaning that is complex and multileveled. An original celestial myth can be adapted to a latter actual story or local event, characters and sequences are manipulated for dramatic effect. Similarly, disruptive events in the sky, become anthropomorphosized and somewhat removed from the original celestial happenings; local embellishments are added, names changed, etc. This is why a systematic comparative approach is needed, looking for common threads, repetative examples of impossible combinations, and strange motifs in otherwise unrelated or even contradictory stories.

I 99.9% agree with this. The .1% disagreement is with 'common threads' as I think that it is a common, i.e. worldwide, story though told in slightly different ways due to differing culture etc.
My approach to comparative mythology is to read the mythology of a particular culture, in as close close to the original as I can get and try to understand what it says, then read the mythology of another culture and look for points of agreement. My method is not about having an a priori theory then trawling through the world's myths looking for bits I can lift and use to buttress said theory. This method has been around for thousands of years, it was not invented by Velikovsky or the Saturn theorists. The planetary catastrophe side of things is not my main interest but as I have said elsewhere, I think that there is stuff in the mythology etc, which may well be about such things.
Nick wrote:

I too, don't agree with Mr. Gilligan on this point, but certainly his thesis is, in principle, potentially falsifiable. Is that not what science is all about?

Personally, I don't accept science or the scientific method as the yardstick by which things must be measured (I don't remember voting for it).
Nick wrote:

(Please ask for forgiveness immediately, lest Zeus hurl a thunderbolt toward you )

No disrespect to the Thunderer but I have Athene and Hermes as my guides. (Whispers: In any case Zeus is no longer the prime mover, Mars/Ares followed him and we are, or are about to, move into the reign of Dionysus).

[nick c]

greetings Grey Cloud:
You use the scientific method, at least informally, much of the time. You have certainly partook of the process on this thread, to advocate by presenting evidence, that the premise of the original post, or some portion thereof, was false.

Nick C

[The Aten]

As a student of military history for 35 years or so, I would be very interested in seeing a list of 34 battles featuring Megiddo.

“Armageddon is a corruption of the Hebrew Har Megiddo and means literally “the mount of Megiddo.” During the past 4000 years, at least 34 bloody conflicts…”

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Armageddon.htm

"Of the 34 battles which have been fought at Megiddo or in the Jezreel Valley during the past 4,000 years by
Canaanite, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine..."

http://jwsr.ucr.edu/volumes/vol6/Cline-v6n1.pdf

I can forward a few more if you like. 34 was even quoted on a recent TV documentary. As in my essay, the majority of battles attributed to the Egyptians, example; Tuthmosis III credited with 18 consecutive Megiddo battles alone.

The obvious answer is: turned to dust. It's what happens in the desert.

You may be a student of military history but you fall well short when it comes to Egyptology. The Egyptians were resurrectionists, they believed you would ‘get up and go’ in the next world. This is why the deceased had to be mummified, without a body, there was no next life, no immortality. This belief lay at the bedrock of Egyptian religion, so much so that if the deceased was missing a toe a false one was fashioned just so deceased would be complete in the next world. The very reason why we know so much about the Egyptians is because of their obsession with the Hereafter.

With the above in mind, are you seriously suggesting the KIA Egyptian soldiers were left where they fell ? Abandoned by their comrades to turn to dust, as you say? No Egyptologists would agree with you on this one. The Egyptians literally lived for the afterlife, they would never abandon loyal friends and comrades to 'turn to dust.' You'd be a fine one to stand next to in war.

Where is the equipment from the First Wrold War battle? The dead, presumably being in military cemetaries. Or did this battle also take place in the heavens and involve Mars?
Where are the tens of thousands of Roman and Celtic dead in Britain? Where are the broken weapons etc?
Battlefields are cleared after a battle. Weapons and equipment are collected and re-used or recycled

There still there silly, only there isn’t nearly so much interest in what you’ve mentioned above as the glorious Ancient Egyptians, everybody knows that. Remembering Egyptology has its routes in attempting to verify the bible.


G

[Grey Cloud]

greetings Grey Cloud:
You use the scientific method, at least informally, much of the time. You have certainly partook of the process on this thread, to advocate by presenting evidence, that the premise of the original post, or some portion thereof, was false.

Nick C

Hi Nick,
I get my method from Socrates, not science.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Aten,
Thanks for the pdf, I will give it a read over the weekend. My request for info was made out of a genuine interest to learn more, I wasn't trying to catch you out. Though I would add that the Jezreel Valley is a big place. (And being mentioned on a TV documentary would incline me more to disbelief than belief).
Every ancient culture was resurrectionist and I agree that this was the bedrock of Egyptian religion. However, I see the mummification thing as a late development as the need for a physical body in the afterlife is illogical. (Have you read any of Schwaller De Lubicz's books - highly recommended if you haven't).
Aten wrote:

With the above in mind, are you seriously suggesting the KIA Egyptian soldiers were left where they fell ?

Nope, as I said battlefields were and are cleared. The Greeks, for example, used to burn the fallen (from both sides). In any case you don't get to look after your fallen comrades if you have retreated, or been defeated.
Aten wrote:

You'd be a fine one to stand next to in war.

You are out of order there my friend. I am a former soldier.
Aten wrote:

There still there silly, only there isn’t nearly so much interest in what you’ve mentioned above as the glorious Ancient Egyptians, everybody knows that.

Are you saying that despite two thousand years of farming and a couple of centuries of intensive building and construction in southern England, that somehow all the dead Romans, Celts etc have been missed?

[The Aten]

Grey Cloud,

wrote:

However, I see the mummification thing as a late development as the need for a physical body in the afterlife is illogical

In transferring ancient history to the above (i.e. sacred hieroglyphs recounting events of above) the nonexistent battles of the pharaohs is just one aspect of my theory. I discuss in depth (book) how, in their naivety, the Egyptians believed the hemispherical dome of heaven was perceived as a real physical landmass (kmt = black land) canopying the Earth, a divine firmament (from a common sense notion). And, as a result of god king planetary bodies appearing to traverse between the two, the Egyptians adopted the notion that by joining with these planetary doubles (their kas) they too would make it to heaven to be reborn as a star in the kingdom of Osiris. This process involved the transferring of ones ‘attributes’ from the deceased to ones astral double (kas). This took time and was carried out by the ba bird, flitting between tomb and astral double (ka). This belief was drawn from actual physical observations and I contend the very reason why the Egyptians were so obsessed with mummification and the next world. In more simplified terms, to see the next world, the Egyptians merely had to look up.

To take this even further, the wrapping of acres of white linen around the deceased come about from observations of pharaonic Mars appearing like a spiralling galaxy as it moved towards the divine land above. And what wrapped Mars in bandages? Why blackness of course, as represented by the black jackal headed god Anubis.

Grey Cloud wrote;

Nope, as I said battlefields were and are cleared. The Greeks, for example, used to burn the fallen (from both sides).

Cleared to what extent? Picking up hundreds of thousands of broken stone chariot parts which cannot be repaired of reused as evidenced by the find at Per Ramesses?? If the fallen were cleared, given the Egyptian obsession with the next world and the fact that they had to be buried on Egyptian soil to be guaranteed an afterlife, we are back to the question of - where are they?

Grey Cloud wrote:

In any case you don't get to look after your fallen comrades if you have retreated, or been defeated.

The Egyptians never lost a battle, so ample time to recover the dead and give them a decent burial, a cenotaph perhaps, none exists at Megiddo. The annuls also record how they chopped off the right hands (& penises) of the enemy so as they could count them. Some even record how these body parts were apparently brought back to Egypt and displayed. All this and yet still no KIA from any of Egypt's 'sacred' battles, especially Megiddo.

Grey Cloud wrote:

Are you saying that despite two thousand years of farming and a couple of centuries of intensive building and construction in southern England, that somehow all the dead Romans, Celts etc have been missed?

Nope, I’m saying archaeology and excavating costs money and nothing comes close to our obsession with Ancient Egypt. Archaeologists need something to go on before embarking of exploitative expeditions in this country, otherwise it’s just not viable. Nobody would fund such excavations on a whim. Egypt, on the other hand is a totally different scenario, there are certain known areas that are worth excavating, one such place, you've guessed it... Megiddo.

Actually, as far as I’m aware Roman sites are actually been discovered on a regular basis.

I would also add, farmers dislike people digging up Roman coinage and other stuff with their metal detectors because, amongst other things, the last thing they want is archaeologists climbing all over their land.

I am reminded of a documentary whereby a WWII plane was shot down over central London. The pilot fortunately parachuted out. Funded by the TV prog. a team closed parts of London off (the city I think) and after bit of detective work they found the plane about 3/4 metres down. Pilot and plane were reunited. The point here, despite crashing in a heavily populated area, no clear up operation took place, they left it where it crashed and simply railroaded over it. Bit like the thousands of chariot parts uncovered only 30cm below the surface at Per Ramesses - left where they fell.

Apologies for the cheap shot.

Regards

GG

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Aten,

Apologies for the cheap shot.

No worries, I've been known to fire off one or two myself.

Aren't the earliest Egyptian graves vertical holes in the ground?
The Egyptian beliefs are essentially no different from any other ancient culture. Mummification, while not entirely unique to the Egyptians, is, to me, a sign of decadence. It does not accord with the original philosophy of the Egyptians, all other cultures (that I am aware of) share the same underlying philosophy as the Egyptians (Greeks, Indians, Chinese, Maya, etc) and under the terms of that philosophy, a physical body is the last thing you want.

As a general point about Mars with regard to the various theories from Velikovsky and his descendents - why is the planet Mars, i.e. the planet of the god of war, the one that gets its butt kicked? Call me old-fashioned but I would have thought that the god of war would the one doing the kicking.

Aten wrote:

Picking up hundreds of thousands of broken stone chariot parts which cannot be repaired of reused as evidenced by the find at Per Ramesses??

Stone chariot parts? Hundreds of thousands?
In any case the locals would scour the battlefield looking for anything of value, even if it was only for building material.
Why isn't the fighting at Per Ramesses imaginary?

Aten wrote:

The Egyptians never lost a battle,

Then how come they were conquered by the Hyksos, the Persians, the Macdonians and the Romans?

Aten wrote:

Archaeologists need something to go on before embarking of exploitative expeditions in this country, otherwise it’s just not viable.

The Romans left accounts of where in the UK they fought.

Aten wrote:

Nobody would fund such excavations on a whim. Egypt, on the other hand is a totally different scenario, there are certain known areas that are worth excavating, one such place, you've guessed it... Megiddo.

Except that Megiddo isn't in Egypt.

Aten wrote:

The point here, despite crashing in a heavily populated area, no clear up operation took place, they left it where it crashed and simply railroaded over it. Bit like the thousands of chariot parts uncovered only 30cm below the surface at Per Ramesses - left where they fell.

Only a foot below ground after a few thousand years is rare. Any place that has been continuously occupied and the past gets buried. Think how deep Elizabethan stuff is in the UK.

[seasmith]

Greycloud wrote:

(Whispers: In any case Zeus is no longer the prime mover, Mars/Ares followed him and we are, or are about to, move into the reign of Dionysus).

GC,
Would you kindly expand upon this a bit please?


Also,
Please pardon dragging this over from another post, but it wasn't just a rhetorical question-

Re: 2012, Nibiru, etc.
by seasmith on Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:19 pm

Re the Nibiru myth, and its origins:

In another thread it was stated:
Re: Revisiting the "Creation" Myth
by Grey Cloud on Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:28 pm

Tina,
I'm not speaking for DT but see my response to your other post where I said that the Sumerian stuff is fragmentary . It is also not as abundant as the Egyptian stuff. Beside which, the Vedic stuff is older than the Sumerian.
Try this:
http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/
And for the record, I take what this guy says with a large pinch of salt.

See aslo:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=600&start=15
the Budge passage crops up there too.


I understand that DT is otherwise occupied presently, but GC can you, another member possibly validate the Sumerian vs Vedic timeline assertion?

W/O doubt, the Vedic mythology recounts a broader expanse of (earthly) time, but does the actual recording of these mythological events in fact pre-date that of the Sumerians ?

~

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Seasmith,

(Whispers: In any case Zeus is no longer the prime mover, Mars/Ares followed him and we are, or are about to, move into the reign of Dionysus).

Sometimes I'm my own worst enemy. This was actually half a joke and half me thinking aloud.
(I'm sorry if this comes out a bit rushed but I haven't got much time at the moment).
First up was Ouranos - the sky/heavens (I think of this as the circumference).
This is followed by Saturn/Kronos.
Saturn/Kronos was succeeded by Jupiter/Zeus. Zeus was the son of Kronos.
The next planet in is Mars/Ares. Ares is a son of Zeus.
Next planet after that is, of course, Earth/Ge/Gaia. Earth is the centre so doesn't count in this.
Dionysos is also a son of Zeus. I'll leave it to you to figure out who or what Dionysos represents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus
http://www.dionysia.org/greek/dionysos/ ... nysos.html
http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Dionysos.html
http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/dionysos.html
http://www.musagora.education.fr/dionys ... /mythe.htm
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/stream ... nysos.html
http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Dionysus

Hint: Ignore virtually every academic theory about Dionysus. Think symbolism, allegory, metaphor etc.

As for the Sumerian/Vedic question, I apologise for not answering. I've not been on the forum much of late and it completely slipped my mind.
No, I don't have any proof that the Vedic is older than the Sumerian, it's just a personal opinion based partly on a total lack of faith in anything academic say about anything.
According to the academics, the Sumerians just sort of turned up overnight, moving from hunter-gatherers to astronomers, mathematicians, theologians, builders, agriculturalists, etc. I am less than convinced by this.
This notion was originally racist - you can't have non-white (Indians) being smarter than whitey. The same was true vis-a-vis the Greeks and the Egyptians. Despite various Greek writers stating explicitly that Greece owed much to Egypt, scholars still took the view that non-white Egyptians must have learned from the white Greeks.
This has changed somewhat over the last few decades but now scholars are stuck with the chronology. (Despite the fact that most of their dating methods aren't worth a carrot).

If you have any further questions feel free to PM me (rather than hijack this thread).