The Power of Pharaoh

It was often said that the Pharaoh was Egypt and the belief that the king was at centre of the Egyptian universe was as old as the civilisation itself. The accuracy of this belief will be the focus of this blog, to what extent was the pharaoh the embodiment of power and authority in Ancient Egypt? However, before exploring this question there are a number of caveats which need to be applied to this potentially problematic question. Firstly, it is important to remember that the Ancient Egyptian civilisation spanned more than 3000 years and while the pharaoh was a relative constant their position evolved which each dynasty. Secondly, when trying to determine the historicity of the pharaoh’s power and position in Ancient Egyptian culture the limitations of our understanding have to be taken into consideration. Egyptology is reliant on the sources, such as monuments, which have survived, as such; the picture which we have is incomplete and sporadic. Moreover, Garry Shaw highlights that much of what has been left to examine was built with a specific purpose – to portray the ideal pharaoh (Shaw, 2012: 19). This blog will endeavour to critically analyse the evidence in order to determine the difference between what the pharaoh wanted to portray and the reality.

The need to paint this persona of the ideal pharaoh extended beyond the necessity of maintaining power; it was rooted firmly in the belief of who the pharaoh was and what kingship meant to the Ancient Egyptians. They believed the institution could be traced back to the time of the gods, the point in Egyptian mythology when the god Osiris ruled Egypt before his ascension to the afterlife. Each king was viewed as a direct descendent of the gods a human incarnation of Osiris’ son Horus (Brewer & Teeter, 2012: 79). This divine claim can be seen throughout Ancient Egyptian history; however, its application varied highlighting that an automatic acceptance of the pharaoh’s divinity could be not expected. There are examples where pharaohs have hyped their divinity in order to reinforce their legitimacy. Cleopatra for example, continued the practice of the Ptolemaic pharaoh in emulating the divinity which the Ancient kings of Egypt had portrayed. During her turbulent reign, Cleopatra used religion as a method to reinforce her legitimacy, initially in her rivalry against her brother and claimant to the throne Ptolemy XIII. Following the assassination of her lover, Julius Caesar she became more convinced of her divinity seeing the parallels between her life and that of the Egyptian goddess Isis. Caesar had been murdered just as Osiris had been and their son Caesarion was Horus (Wilkinson 2010: 500). This embracing of the Egyptian religion and the divine tradition of the pharaohs helped legitimise her reign and was essential to her success.

The importance of the link between the pharaohs and their divinity cannot be understated - it was fundamental to their power base and at the heart of the Ancient Egyptian’s understanding of the balance or Maat of the universe. To the Ancient Egyptians Maat represented a balance which must be maintained at all levels of life; from the personal through to nature and the nation state. So important was this concept of Maat (balance) that the foundation of Egyptian religion was a contract between the Gods and Pharaoh – in exchange for protection the Pharaoh would ensure that Maat was maintained throughout Egypt (Shaw, 207: 500). The mythology behind the pharaoh is partly responsible for the difficulty which we have to determine the reality of their reign. Shaw argues that the pharaoh was always depicted as being successful; the monuments which have survived are testament to this myth. As such they have to be viewed extremely critically as they were designed with a very specific purpose; to portray the pharaoh in such a light that his posterity would be eternal (ibid).

The reality, therefore, is more complicated and while the divinity of the pharaoh was central to the myth, it should not be confused with absolute authority. As has always been the case the authority of the pharaoh varied depending on the incumbent and the circumstances in which they reigned. Behind the pharaoh there was a large administrative government which was headed by a vizier; they were responsible for the day to day running of Egypt and held great influence (Ikram 2009: 180). However, this was not always a harmonious relationship, for example, there multiple issues in the courts of the 19th and 20th Dynasties. Poor leadership, corruption and a breakdown of authority caused by succession crisis led to a near complete collapse of government and the end of the Middle Kingdom (Van De Mieroop 2011: 244). This pattern of a weak link was responsible for the downfall of many dynasties throughout Egyptian history and while the myth of pharaoh may have been eternal, too often they would fall foul of worldly problems such as war, famine and court intrigue.

Moreover, the royal family were often a restriction on the authority of the pharaoh. In particular the Queens and Queen Mothers represented a significant power base that could either support a successful pharaoh or be responsible for their undoing. One such example would be Hatshepsut who was arguably the real power behind her husband’s reign Thutmose II. Hatshepsut would eventually rule in her own right when she had herself crowned pharaoh instead of the successor the young Thutmose III. There has been extensive historical debate as to whether Hatshepsut usurped the throne or whether she reigned with her nephew as a co-regent. While her monuments were defaced which would usually indicate an attempt to erase an unpopular leader, her successor and potential rival was head of her armies. It would be illogical to make a political enemy head of the army and consequently the destruction of her monuments would suggest that the attempt to erase her legitimacy occurred later than Thutmose III. It is possible that this was the act of one of Thutmose III’s successors who was attempting to reinforce their claim to throne by weakening that of Hatshepsut (Wilkinson 2010: 229). Monuments could often serve a dual purpose for the legacy of a pharaoh and their authority. Construction of a mighty monument such as the great pyramids or the temple at Luxor could cement your authority and ensure your eternal legacy. The destruction and/or re-appropriation of a dead pharaoh’s monument or tomb demonstrate how fleeting the authority of the pharaoh was and how their posterity was heavily dependent on the whims of their successors.

Another potential threat to the authority of the pharaoh was foreign invasion. For the majority of the Ancient Egyptian history the Egyptians were the rulers rather than the subjugated. The Egyptians had an intense sense of racial superiority which was embodied in the image of the pharaoh as the absolute authority of all Egypt and its sphere of influence. In the all three kingdoms this led to the invasion and occupation of the Nubians and Libyans, however, towards the end of the New Kingdom the tide began to turn. A growing bureaucracy and the strength of the military caused the slow erosion of pharaoh’s authority (Ikram 2009: 187). After the New Kingdom collapsed a succession of foreign powers occupied Egypt eventually turning the pharaoh into nothing more than puppet ruler – a far cry from the eternal king at the centre of the Egyptian universe.

Brewer, D. & Teeter, E. (2012) Egypt and the Egyptians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shaw, G. (2012) The Pharaoh, Life at Court and on Campaign. London: Thames and Hudson.

Shaw, G. (2014) The Egyptian Myths A Guide to the Ancient Gods and Legends. London: Thames and Hudson.

Ikram, S. (2009) Ancient Egypt, An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van De Mieroop, M. (2011) A History of Ancient Egypt. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell

Wilkinson, T. (2010) The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.