History vs Egypt s most powerful pharaoh Jessica Tomkins

Pharaoh Ramesses II reigned for almost 70 years in the 13th century BCE. He presided over a golden age of Egyptian prosperity. But was he a model leader, or a shameless egomaniac and master of propaganda? Order, order. Who do we have on the stand? Ramesses II? Ahem. I believe you mean the Strong Bull, protector of Egypt who subdues foreign lands, rich in years, great in victories, chosen by Ra, whose justice is powerful, Ramesses, beloved of Amun. But you may refer to him as Ramesses the Great. Ramesses, Ramesses, I think I've heard of him. Let my people go. Yes, your honor, he was the infamously stubborn pharaoh of Exodus, who forced enslaved Hebrews to build out his extravagant capital city of Peremses. Objection. There's no archaeological evidence that Ramesses used forced labor in his construction projects. Egyptians relied on highly trained artisans and craftsmen to build their cities and monuments, and menial labor like quarrying and moving stones was done by militarist soldiers and foreign mercenaries, all of whom were compensated for their work. So he's not the pharaoh from Exodus? It's hard to say for certain. According to some timelines, Ramesses is the best candidate for that particular pharaoh, but there's no evidence of any Hebrew population in Egypt during his reign, and certainly no records of a revolution or mass migration like the one described in Exodus. Is that really so surprising? It's not like Ramesses kept records of any other time he was defeated. What do you mean? Our great pharaoh here operated one of the largest propaganda machines in ancient history. Almost all pharaohs relied on propaganda to control their country, and Ramesses had particularly big sandals to fill. His father, Seti I, led Egypt to a period of great wealth and stability that Ramesses worked hard to maintain, through propaganda, yes, but also military glory. More like military aggression. By the end of Seti's reign, he had established peace with the neighboring Hittites by guaranteeing Egyptian control over a sought-after region called Kadesh. But in the fifth year of his reign, Ramesses broke those agreements. It wasn't the most peaceful decision, but Ramesses believed a military victory would aid his efforts to restore Egypt's reputation. And he was right. His victory over the Hittites cemented Ramesses' persona as a heroic pharaoh of old. Yeah, except he didn't even win. His supposed victory was actually a stalemate in which the pharaoh's arrogance almost cost Egypt the entire war. When two Hittite spies told Ramesses the enemy had fled in fear, he let his guard down, allowing his men to be ambushed. He played right into the Hittites' trap and almost lost everything. Yet the official story Ramesses had chiseled across Egypt cast himself as the battle's greatest hero. Military achievements were important for legitimizing a pharaoh's power, even if that meant a bit of exaggeration. A bit? You can't trust anything this guy says. If it wasn't for the Hittites' conflicting record, we'd still be buying Ramesses' propaganda. I propose that this court cannot judge any historical figure's legacy by the stories they tell about themselves. That seems reasonable to me. Fair enough. How's this record, then? The first recorded peace treaty in archaeological history signed by Ramesses and the Hittites. Peace treaty is pretty generous. Ramesses begrudgingly agreed to a mutual defense contract where Egyptians and Hittites would work together if attacked by an external enemy. And what's wrong with that? This peaceful end to the conflict marked the beginning of Ramesses' prosperous reign, a golden age of Egyptian power and wealth. True, but we have no idea if this wealth trickled down to everyday Egyptians or just financed Ramesses' vain attempts to achieve immortality through stone. He spent his entire reign pouring money into ego projects. And one of the most famous, Abu Simbel, wasn't even in Egypt. Abu Simbel was in Nubia to showcase Egypt's strength and discourage a Nubian revolution. Besides, pharaohs were expected to invest in building projects for the gods. Right, for the gods, which Ramesses was not. Pharaohs typically occupied a status between But the location of Ramesses' statue inside Abu Simbel positions him as their supposed equal. He even tore down existing temples to reuse their bricks in monuments to himself. He tore down temples built by Akhenaten, a pharaoh who'd attempted to impose monotheism. By destroying those temples, Ramesses reinforced his commitment to Egypt's traditional religion. That doesn't account for why he frequently erased other pharaohs' names on monuments and replaced them with his own. Even pharaohs who had short reigns had numerous statues made of themselves, and Ramesses ruled for almost seven decades. Let's face it, your honor, would we even be talking about him today if he hadn't? It's often said that history is written by the winners, but in this courtroom, a winning record never guarantees the outcome. Now for our next case. She was the most notorious woman in ancient history, a queen who enraptured not one but two of Rome's greatest generals. But was she just a skilled seductress or a great ruler in her own right? Make your judgment with this video.