ple, the texts include both Nubia, where Egyptian military
forces were constantly on alert, and Byblos, with which Eg y pt
maintained a mainly peaceful trading relationship. Unlike
the Nine Bows, the execration texts list only non-Egyptian
peoples. Th e implication in the texts is that any non-Egyp-
tian—any foreigner—was a potential enemy of Egypt.
Although foreigners typically were viewed as potential
enemies of the Egyptian state, warriors from Nubia and Libya
were recruited as mercenaries for the Egyptian army. When
the Sixth Dynasty (ca. 2323–ca. 2150 b.c.e.) offi cial Weni led
the Egyptian army against Asiatics in the north and the no-
madic tribes in the east, he commanded an army made up
of Egyptians and Nubians from Wawat, Irtjet, Kaau, Yam,
and Medja from the eastern desert. Recruits from Nubia and
Medja also joined the armies of the Herakleopolitan and
Th eban dynasties in the First Intermediate Period (2134–
2040 b.c.e.). Th ese Nubian mercenaries fought for the Egyp-
tians against Asiatics, but they also fought in battles meant
to secure the southern border against their fellow Nubians.
Middle Kingdom Egypt (2040–1640 b.c.e.) saw mercenaries
recruited from the oases in the western desert. In the 19th
and 20th Dynasties (1307–1070 b.c.e.) major wars with the
Libyans resulted in large numbers of Libyan prisoners, who
were relocated to settlements in the eastern delta. Th ese Liby-
ans, former enemies of Egypt, consequently were relied upon
to protect Egypt’s eastern border. In the Late Period the kings
of the Saite Dynasty (664–525 b.c.e.) were said to have relied
heavily on Greek and Carian mercenaries. Th e nature of for-
eign mercenaries and the fact that they oft en fought against
their own people show an ambiguity on the part of the Egyp-
tians; both the enemy of Egypt and the army protecting Egypt
were of the same people.
Th e attitude of the Egyptians toward the Nubians in the
south was increasingly one of domination and fear. In the Old
Kingdom, King Merenre (2255–2246 b.c.e.) visited the south-
ern frontier and met with the chiefs of Wawat, Irtjet, and the
Medja. Th e Egyptian texts interpreted this as an act of hom-
age on the part of the Nubians, but it was probably a mission
geared toward promoting goodwill along the southern border.
Th is goodwill policy was far from the normal course of action.
Th ere are records of military campaigns against Nubia from
the Early Dynastic Period on. In the Middle Kingdom, Egyp-
tian kings built two series of large fortresses along the Nile in
Nubia. Th e largest fort had a garrison of approximately 300
soldiers and their families. In all, several thousand soldiers
and supporting staff were stationed in the 13 forts. Th is is
an immense force, given that the indigenous population of
Lower Nubia has been estimated at only 10,000. Th e pharaohs
of the New Kingdom (1550–1070 b.c.e.) built even more forts
and established a branch of the Egyptian government to rule
in Nubia. To assimilate the Nubians into Egyptian society,
the children of the Kushite chiefs were sent to the Egyptian
court to learn the language, customs, religion, and so forth of
the Egyptian people. Th e indigenous population was subject
to the viceroy of Kush, who acted on the king’s behalf.
Th e Egyptians took less drastic measures when dealing
with the lands of Palestine during the period of Egyptian
domination in the New Kingdom. While warfare in this area
was not unknown, the nations of Palestine were less likely to
be a major threat; the Egyptians, while still cautious, did not
fear them as they did Nubia. Fortifi ed Egyptian settlements
in Palestine were rare. Indigenous populations became vassal
states, but in some cases were able to rule themselves as op-
posed to being ruled by Egyptian governors.THE MIDDLE EAST
BY JUSTIN CORFIELD
Many of the large empires that covered the ancient Near East
were multiethnic, consisting of large numbers of diff erent
and oft en linguistically diverse peoples. Th e Assyrian, Baby-
lonian, and Persian Empires embraced much wider areas than
those of the city-states of Sumer and oft en subjugated alien
peoples through force. Th e Assyrians, in particular, gained
a reputation for the persecution of their enemies. Th eir great
king Ashurbanipal (r. 668–627 b.c.e.) sacked Tyre, and his
subsequent suppression of the people of Elam resulted in the
deportation of many leading Elamites to Samaria in Pales-
tine. Th e holding of the Hebrews in exile in Babylonia from
587 to 538 b.c.e. is another well-known case, documented in
the Bible.
Achaemenid Persia was a massive, multilingual empire
extending over the entire Near East. Th e Persians used Ara-
maic as the written language of administration and commu-
nication between the capital and outlying areas, Elamite as the
principal language of administration at the capital Persepolis,
and Old Persian when erecting public monuments with royal
inscriptions (which, however, were usually written in Babylo-
nian and Elamite as well). Th e Persians freed the Hebrews from
their Babylonian exile and began to reverse some of the depor-
tations perpetrated by the Assyrians. As the Persian Empire
grew in importance, it attracted many Greek merchants and
soldiers. By the time of the invasion of Alexander the Great,
large Greek communities existed throughout much of the Per-
sian Empire, and substantial units of Greek soldiers fought in
the Persian army. At Gaugamela in 331 b.c.e. these soldiers
were placed around the Immortals who guarded Darius III (r.
336–330 b.c.e.), showing his trust for them on the battlefi eld.
Th ese Greeks were to be heavily persecuted when Alexander
the Great and his successors came to power.
Alexander the Great and the “Successor States” that
emerged from the Diadochi Wars aft er his death were also
multiethnic. Although there was always a Greek-Macedonian
governing class, most of the administrators were locally born.
For many of the farmers in small villages and settlements
throughout the Near East, the change in rule from the Per-
sians to the Seleucids probably had little real impact. Many
of the cities in the Near East most likely became increasingly
multiethnic and multilingual. Although occasional racial
scapegoating must have occurred, and stereotyping aboundsforeigners and barbarians: The Middle East 485