But these ‘Great Kings’ did regularly meet lesser princes when these came to their
land for consultations or instructions, and they also met lesser princes when the ‘Great
Kings’ themselves were campaigning abroad.
THE BALANCE OF POWER IN THE
BRONZE AGENevertheless, the archive from the Egyptian capital at Akhetaten (Amarna) does
preserve a number of letters exchanged directly between the kings of Egypt and
Babylonia. It also includes exchanges with Mitanni, Hatti and Assyria which confirm
that the Egyptian foreign ministry had a clear understanding of power relations in
Mesopotamia. The Egyptian lack of interest in Babylonia itself is indicative of their
consciousness of the balance of power. Within their horizon, the relevant actors were
Mitanni and Hatti, and – just barely – Assyria. In Egyptian terms, Babylon had no
military role to play, and thus was treated as an observer.
Although the use of writing, the 360 -day year, and niched monumental mud-
brick architecture are irrefutable traces of Mesopotamian influence in Egypt at the
very start of the third millennium BC, there is not much more that one can read in
the material. Aside from a couple of stone vessels found in Mesopotamia, there is
virtually no trace of any contact with Egypt during the third millennium BC, or
indeed through the first part of the second millennium (see, however, Kaelin 2006
for third-millennium influence).
Contact between Egypt and Babylonia only gradually emerged and developed under
the impact of the Hittite and Egyptian advances into Syria, from the middle of the
second millennium BC. Initially, the Hittite conquest of Babylon ( 1499 BC),^2 was
followed by an interlude during which the Hittites lost all power outside of Anatolia.
The resulting power vacuum permitted the Kassites, already on the Euphrates in
Syria (Podany 1991 – 93 ), to move into Babylonia, the Mitanni empire to spread across
northern Mesopotamia, and the Egyptian king Thutmosis I to advance as far as the
Euphrates in Syria. At this time, Assyria was basically eclipsed and Kassite Babylonia
unconscious of any potential power. The result was that as the Mitanni empire
gradually spread further toward the Mediterranean Sea, and the Egyptians cautiously
moved northwards, these two powers came into conflict, a conflict which endured
until Mitanni was threatened by a revival of Hittite power in the north and Assyrian
power in the east.^3
The period between the Euphrates campaign of Thutmosis I (perhaps c. 1490 BC)
and that of Thutmosis III (perhaps c. 1446 BC) was marked by the expansion of Mitanni
in the north. When Thutmosis I moved, Syria was still suffering from the after effects
of the Hittite campaigns which had destroyed the centres of power in northern Syria
at Alalakh, Ebla and Aleppo, as well as Babylon itself, whereas Thutmosis III came
into direct conflict with Mitanni. Unfortunately for the Egyptians, Mitanni, moving
west to the Mediterranean coast and south along the Orontes, proved sufficiently
powerful for it to block the Egyptian route north. Mitanni control of the Orontes
was secured by treaties with the smaller power centres, such as Alalakh and Tunip,
recognising Mitanni sovereignty in northern Syria (Reiner in ANET). Therefore, from
the final years of the reign of Thutmosis III, and for the duration of that of his son
Amenophis II, the Egyptian advances were halted in the region of the Orontes Valley.
— David A. Warburton —