from 264 to 241 b.c.e., was indecisive. However, to put an
end to the war, Carthage had had to pay a great deal of trib-
ute to Rome. Th ese payments exhausted Carthage’s treasury,
with the result that it was unable to pay its army, particu-
larly the mercenary soldiers it had hired to fi ght in the war.
(Carthage relied for its power almost entirely on its navy,
hiring mercenaries to fi ght its land battles.) Some unpaid
mercenary rebels seized control of one of Carthage’s main
assets in the Mediterranean, the island of Sardinia. Armed
confl ict between the rebels and the main force of Carthage’s
mercenary army erupted in 240 b.c.e. Carthage won, and
the confl ict ended in 237 b.c.e. aft er brutal fi ghting. Th e so-
called Mercenary Revolt further weakened Carthage, laying
the groundwork for its eventual defeat at the hands of the
Romans.
Although Carthage as a major military and trading
empire was crushed by the Romans in 146 b.c.e., Carthage
continued to exist as a political unit into the Christian era.
As the Christian church grew and spread, it expanded into
Africa, and Carthage became the home of a major diocese of
the church. In 397 c.e., for example, a church council met at
Carthage, and it was there that the accepted canon of books
of the Bible was established. However, many African Chris-
tians were disaff ected. Not only did they disagree with one
another over church doctrine but they also rebelled from the
authority of Rome, which was still under the control of the
Roman Empire. In the eyes of some historians this religious
dissent weakened the region, making it ripe for conquest by
the Vandals from the north in the fi ft h century.
EGYPT
BY EDWARD M. W. A. ROWLANDS
Ancient Egypt was a very centralized and conservative state,
where the ability to infl uence the direction of the government
was restricted to a privileged few. Even so, throughout an-
cient Egyptian history dynasties of pharaohs could rise and
fall owing to the impact of political factions. Th e priesthood,
high offi cials of the kingdom, members of the royal family,
and army generals all at various times achieved and exercised
signifi cant infl uence on the pharaoh.
Th e political history of Egypt before its unifi cation is un-
clear, but the success of the fi rst ruling families probably came
from a combination of war and dynastic marriage. Early re-
gional monarchs in the Naqâda III Period (ca. 3300–ca. 3100
b.c.e.), such as the ruler known only as “King Scorpion” of
Hierakonpolis, would undoubtedly have been driven by their
own desire for glory and craving for power. As the number of
kingdoms in Egypt decreased, the successful ruling families
grew powerful enough to be taken very seriously by any king.
Evidence of this power appears in the concentrated wealth of
small groups of people in burials found at Buto, Abydos, and
Hierakonpolis. Th e ability to distribute luxury items to the
aristocracy was important, and as kings came to dominate
commercial routes and ever-increasing territory, they were
able to meet these leading families’ demands.
Aft er the unifi cation of the country around 3100 b.c.e.,
Egypt was dominated from Memphis in Lower Egypt. Th e
pharaoh, considered divine and omnipotent, held absolute
power, as can be seen especially in the Old Kingdom (ca.
2575–2134 b.c.e.). Snefru (r. ca. 2575–2551 b.c.e.) was able to
build three pyramids. His successor, Khufu (r. ca. 2551–2528
b.c.e.) built the Great Pyramid, a structure so enormous that
it was the tallest man-made object on earth for several mil-
lennia. Any sort of political protest to a regime this strong
and centralized could have come only from the very top
of society. Public expressions of defi ance would have been
crushed.
Th e vizier, the offi cial who headed the pharaoh’s admin-
istration, was essentially second in command in the king-
dom. Imhotep, vizier to the pharaoh Djoser (r. ca. 2630–2611
b.c.e.), was the genius who designed the Step Pyramid at
Saqqara. He was showered with titles by the pharaoh and is
likely to have wielded considerable infl uence at court. Th e
holder of the viziership had a variety of important roles,
from collecting taxes to leading military campaigns, and
this power sometimes led a vizier to challenge the author-
ity of the pharaoh. Amenemhet I (r. ca. 1991–1962 b.c.e.),
for example, is thought to have been the vizier of a previ-
ous monarch and used his position to gain the throne. In the
New Kingdom (ca. 1550–1070 b.c.e.) the power of the vizier-
ship was split, with one vizier for Lower Egypt and another
for Upper Egypt.
In the transition from the Old to the Middle Kingdom
(ca. 2140–1640 b.c.e.) the power of the pharaoh crumbled.
Egypt was administered by nomarchs, offi cials who con-
trolled the nomes (provincial administrative centers) of the
kingdom. In the Old Kingdom the pharaoh appointed the
nomarchs, usually choosing members of his own family. By
the end of the Old Kingdom these offi cials had become a
power to rival his own. Th eir positions became hereditary as
the pharaoh gradually lost his control over them. During the
Old Kingdom the nomarchs had raised armed forces when
the pharaoh demanded it. By the end of this era and into the
First Intermediate Period (2134–2040 b.c.e.) nomarchs had
caused strife and decentralization by their control of local
forces and taxation. Th eir independence from the pharaoh
can be seen by the growth of their statuary and the size of
their tombs. Th e country was united again in the Middle
Kingdom by Amenemhet I, but the nomarchs’ threat to the
pharaoh did not end until Sesostris III (r. ca. 1878–1841?
b.c.e.) established a royal army that was no longer levied by
the nomarchs.
Th e successful military campaigns of the Eighteenth Dy-
nasty (1550–1307 b.c.e.) and long-running wars in Syria-Pal-
estine, fi rst against the Hurrians and then against the Hittites,
brought the army into a very powerful position. Before the
New Kingdom the military had not been as powerful as theresistance and dissent: Egypt 871