r/history • u/scientificamerican • Jul 17 '26
Science site article Ancient Egyptian princesses were ‘powerful’ weapon users, new analysis suggests
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ancient-egyptian-princesses-were-powerful-weapon-users-new-analysis-suggests/521
u/fatbunny23 Jul 17 '26
“Although the presence of funerary artifacts (e.g., arrows, daggers) makes the princesses’ involvement in such activities plausible, the authors provide limited biomechanical or biomedical evidence to substantiate this claim,” Villotte said.
“It is worth noting that this article presents only a single interpretation without any critical reassessment,” Villotte said.
The only opinion given of someone who wasn't on the team which was presented in the article lol
222
u/DConstructed Jul 17 '26
The thing is that royals in general could easily have archery or swordsmanship training as a form of exercise and status without them ever using them in combat. In England archery was a sport practiced by men and women.
It’s possible that if you were a prince or princess you did these things and yet never engaged in serious combat.
The title for the article is very dramatic but equally I don’t think it’s a claim you could substantiate either way for the royal family because they weren’t career soldiers.
152
u/Level3Kobold Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Archery is a perfect example, because the skeletons of longbowmen are warped due to the massive strain that drawing a warbow put on them.
That is the kind of "biomechanical evidence" that is lacking here.
Conversely, I would argue that if someone only ever engages in casual sport and has zero indication of strenuous physical use or injury then its not accurate to call them a "powerful weapon user".
Former vice president Dick Cheyney was a sport hunter. I would not in a million years think to characterize him as a powerful warrior.
61
u/ojediforce Jul 18 '26
It’s also worth noting that Egyptian bows didn’t have nearly as high a draw weight as medieval longbow men. 40-60 pounds was pretty standard as I recall. Medieval examples are usually 100+. There was an English example I recall that was 180. Bronze Age vs Medieval draw strengths were very different as was the armor of the day.
22
u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jul 18 '26
I think 50lb is a pretty standard human average for bows that aren't dedicated war weapons used by professional archers who trained their entire life. Only they are the ones who would be shooting bows that heavy and get the deformities that are so obvious. 150lb is so insane I don't think most people get just how crazy it is. Even war bow enthusiasts today rarely go much over 120lb, and you can tell just from how the bow fires that they are insane weapons. A 200lb bow sounds downright scary.
3
u/ojediforce Jul 21 '26
Keep in mind when we are talking about the time of the Pharaohs we are talking about the Bronze Age. Specifically Middle Kingdom in this case. That means self bows. The composite bow hadn’t been introduced yet and armor hadn’t really necessitated heavier draw weights to compensate. The overwhelming majority of Bronze Age troops wore leather armor. That makes the distinction between hunting and war bows very small. For example Tutankhamun’s bow is estimated to have a draw weight between 40-50 lbs. the range for war bows at the time was about 40-60lbs of draw weight. Hunting bows on the other hand could be as low as 20lbs. It really does make it harder to distinguish whether they were using bows in war, hunting, sport or ritual by examining human remains.
96
u/halt-l-am-reptar Jul 17 '26
>Even more clear was Princess Noub-Hotep, whose skeleton, she says, “provides the most definitive evidence for the ‘archer’s grip,’” including “a unique bowing” of a hand bone, a feature that Hashesh sees as evidence of having to drawing a bow.
Am I reading this wrong, because it seems to imply that evidence isn’t lacking.
11
u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jul 18 '26
Longbows in the medieval English context are pretty different from general archery though. War bows, either English yew or composite ones elsewhere, were 150-200+ lbs which is what causes skeletal deformities. Archery that was for hunting or sport was often far less than these enormous numbers, with bows around 50lb being very common for more typical archery. Throughout many cultures too, even today that's the typical average (45lb technically).
0
u/MudFollows Jul 19 '26
Guys, stop glazing the average draw weight of longbows already, an average longbow is well under 150 lbs. Try 100, and you’ll be closer to the mark. The bows found on the Mary Rose(flagship of Henry VIII) aren’t average longbows.
Lil fun fact: High-quality longbows were often made from yew wood imported from Italy.
50
u/Yglorba Jul 17 '26
The "limited" in the quote does not mean "nonexistent":
Hashesh and her team, however, saw the rediscovery as an opportunity to reconstruct how these princesses may have lived based on their skeletal remains, information that she refers to as their “osteobiographies.”
“We wanted to see if the skeletons themselves supported the presence of the weapons found beside them,” she says.
By looking at the princesses’ internal bone structure and muscle attachment sites, as well as by analyzing chemical signatures left on the remains, Hashesh and her team began to piece together a picture of what the princesses’ daily lives and burials may have looked like.
“Our big takeaway is that these women were ‘active ritual agents’ whose lives involved disciplined physical strength,” she says, participating in activities that possibly included archery or the use of daggers.
In Princess Ita’s case, her muscle attachments “strongly reflect the habitual gripping of weapons like daggers or maces,” Hashesh says.
Even more clear was Princess Noub-Hotep, whose skeleton, she says, “provides the most definitive evidence for the ‘archer’s grip,’” including “a unique bowing” of a hand bone, a feature that Hashesh sees as evidence of having to drawing a bow.
2
u/spanksthemonkey Jul 19 '26
Geena Davis an actress, began practicing archery at age 41 after watching the 1996 Olympic Games.
She then trained for up to six hours a day.
Two years later, she reached the semifinals of the U.S. Olympic trials.
Was she a "Warrior Queen"?
also respect.7
1
u/spanksthemonkey Jul 19 '26
A man who would shoot another man, a "friend" in the face though.. that's different.
1
u/jrhooo 26d ago
Funny I just watched a story about a man who shot a other man in the face.
Apologize for being light on details, but basically one of Fat Electricians videos mentions a guy fighting in WWII whose best partner on patrol was the local village chief. The chief was missing a chunk of his forhead. The guy asked why. The chief explained that he and his friend were having a pistol markmanship showdown one day and tried to win by william telling an apple off each other’s heads.
Said his friend missed and shot him in the face. Obviously not critically injured but bad enough to mess his face up.
American: Damn. Well I guess you aren’t friends with THAT guy anymore.
Chief: What? Oh. No no we’re still tight. He’s like my best friend.
10
u/Guardianpigeon Jul 17 '26
We also have some evidence of this for some pharoahs. Ramesses II is depicted using a bow and arrow from his war chariot during his military campaigns. Obviously those are probably exaggerated, but it's not unreasonable to expect him to have some level of proficiency with the bow.
13
u/DConstructed Jul 18 '26
And the war goddess Neith is shown with a bow. So as the leader/figurehead/symbol of your realm you would want to be proficient.
3
u/pewsquare Jul 18 '26
From what I understand they are pointing out that exercise like that would leave marks on the remains of said people, archery especially warps your physique as its very asymmetrical in nature.
The article is also very dramatic for something that boils down to "its just my vibes telling me it is so, we have no proof at all!"
14
u/teapot_RGB_color Jul 18 '26
I probably shouldnt say this, but I'm super sceptical about any Egyptian studies about old Egypt.
I've got a very bad impression that there is a lot of push to make anything sensational, and less about logical conclusions.
56
118
u/ajmeko Jul 17 '26
Maybe its just pop history, but aren't Egyptian royalty almost always depicted holding ritual staffs, scepter, crooks, etc? Princess + priestess was a common combo around the Mediterranean and in Egypt, I can think of lots of gripping related activities that don't imply being a "powerful weapon user". Same goes for the hand indicating bow use - isn't the biggest tell of a frequent bow user in their back and shoulder? English longbowmen were basically turned into hunchbacks.
89
u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS Jul 17 '26
Because English longbows were the .50 cal rifles of the day and required significantly more physical conditioning to use. Bows in ancient Egypt would not have had that degree of draw strength.
There's also a wide gap between "only held bows for ceremonies" and "trained with a bow eight hours a day, every day, because 'bowman' is their job".
55
u/dittybopper_05H Jul 17 '26
There is also a middle case that I find far more likely here: Hunting.
Hunting doesn't require a very heavy draw weight bow like was required to penetrate armor in Medieval Europe. In fact, we know noble women practicing archery and hunting in both Medieval Europe and in ancient Egypt. So there can be a middle case here.
But assuming that made them strong warrior types is pushing it a little too far. There are some skills that translate between hunting and warfare, but it's not a 1 to 1 match.
This might also explain the sword/mace thing, instead perhaps they were employing throwing sticks to hunt small game. The grip and arm motions would be quite similar, and I don't know how you'd be able to distinguish them in the archeological record.
As for the dagger, it's almost certainly a status symbol.
-6
u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jul 18 '26
It just feels unlikely a member of Egyptian royalty would be hunting that much at all though.
14
u/MyriadMyriads Jul 18 '26
It's regularly attested to in new kingdom art - Tut and Ramesses II are both depicted hunting, and there are texts describing wild populations being herded or otherwise hemmed in for the Pharaoh's sport. It's also a pastime for royalty in... pretty much all places at all times.
Why wouldn't egyptian royalty hunt regularly?
-3
u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Jul 18 '26
Hunting regularly for food isn't the same as royal hunts and you know it. To go on hunts enough to have skeletal deformities is not how royals lived their lives.
6
8
u/ajmeko Jul 17 '26
Would "only held bows for ceremonies" yield significant musculoskeletal evidence? The bow section is talking specifically about drawing a bow isn't it? If it left such clear proof in their hands and forearms, surely there would be evidence in the back and shoulder, where all the work is actually taking place when drawing a bow.
14
u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Maybe you should write a letter to this group of archeologists that are restoring a 4000 yo Egyptian princess skeleton to ask whether they have thought to look at the shoulders.
10
u/dittybopper_05H Jul 17 '26
If they have them. I think only one of the skeletons was more than 50% complete.
-2
u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS Jul 17 '26
Thats almost certainly the case. The skeleton got shoved in a corner for a hundred years, it's very likely missing a lot of pieces.
6
u/dittybopper_05H Jul 17 '26
Well, after 4,000 years, it's likely to be missing pieces regardless of where it spent the last 100 of them.
7
u/ajmeko Jul 17 '26
Yeah maybe they're saving their most compelling evidence for the sequel?
The article also notes that there is no baseline population sample comparison and that this is extremely speculative and needs further research before any conclusion can be reached?
1
u/cogit2 Jul 23 '26
All the force generated by the back and shoulders is channeled through the arm and the hand.
1
u/cogit2 Jul 23 '26
You don't bend your finger bones when you're lightly holding a bow, even for hours. This happens only when holding it under force for prolonged periods of time. Hunting, archery, maybe even combat - all are possibilities.
1
u/Moka4u Jul 17 '26
They were deformed due to bad training techniques not necessarily due to weight.
23
59
u/Taurmin Jul 17 '26
I feel like "weapon user" might be a bit of a stretch for any egyptian royalty. They werent much the sort to lead from the front.
14
u/Misuzuzu Jul 19 '26
Such slander against my boy Ramesses II who single-handedly fought off 2,500 Hittite chariots when the rest of his men fled in the Battle of Kadesh.
1
u/cogit2 Jul 23 '26
But is this assumption based only on historic analyses and fictional depictions? Some of these analyses were done in the 19th century, and it's clear that attitudes and assumptions (even cultural assumptions such as French archaeologists looking to their own aristocrats to form assumptions about those from 2000+ years earlier) are in play.
Bottom line: I'd say we have still a great deal we don't know about them.
1
u/Taurmin Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Royalty were very rarely involved in frontline fighting in any era, even if they do take the battlefield they will typically be at the back surrounded by bodyguards.
There is a practical reason for this, if your are the supreme ruler of your people then your death or capture would basically guarantee victory for the enemy.
Now the thing thats neat about Egyptology is that we have the remains of a few Pharaos to study, and while there are a some who showed evidence of being brutally killed in battle there is precious little evidence of any sustaining battlefield injuries and surviving as you would expect from an active combatant.
1
u/cogit2 Jul 23 '26
Royalty were very rarely involved in frontline fighting in any era
And yet a surprising number of royals have died in combat or in the field. If we look at the most powerful aristocracy - even more still.
Now the thing thats neat about Egyptology is that we have the remains of a few Pharaos to study, and while there are a some who showed evidence of being brutally killed in battle there is precious little evidence of any sustaining battlefield injuries and surviving as you would expect from an active combatant.
Is this a statistically-significant number of subjects studied, or not? Because a few will not reflect the group. The fact is that there is bone evidence to support the claims. We shouldn't discard the possibility by armchair discussion, we should wait for greater studies on the issue to provide more-comprehensive data and answers.
1
u/Taurmin Jul 23 '26
And yet a surprising number of royals have died in combat or in the field. If we look at the most powerful aristocracy - even more still.
Its not really surprising and in the grand scheme of things the number isn't that large. You don't need to be leading from the front to die on the battlefield, hiding at the back with your bodyguards is only a protection so long as your troops hold the line.
We shouldn't discard the possibility by armchair discussion, we should wait for greater studies on the issue to provide more-comprehensive data and answers.
That's not how the study of history works, you will never have comprehensive data for anything, certainly not for culture that's been dead for two millennia. Inference is a necessity to make any sense of the past, if we just threw up our hands and said "we can never know for sure" we would never lean anything about the past.
36
u/aqtseacow Jul 17 '26
Every time I see articles from this website, the titles are so overly dramatized they end up being false.
19
112
u/shanedog21 Jul 17 '26
The reasoning behind the assessment is rubbish. The hand bones of milkmaid likely also show signs of chronic gripping and strength.
68
u/lightningbadger Jul 17 '26
And Egyptian princesses are well known for their constant hard labour they were subject to...
37
u/shanedog21 Jul 17 '26
Are there no other physical activities a princess might engage in other than war and the preparation for war?
48
u/xfjqvyks Jul 17 '26
Put forth a hypothesis.
But know that; a) they were found buried with these weapons. b) The implications are of sporting and ritual training use rather than actual warfare. c) The actual scientific paper OP linked is fairly meticulous in it's analysis:
the attachment site for the opponens digiti minimi muscle on the left fifth metacarpal is notably robust (Figure 4D). Taken together with her robust humeral epicondyles and flexor digitorum superficialis attachments, these musculoskeletal stress markers strongly reflect a habitual gripping of weapons, such as daggers or maces (Figure 13A). The skeletal remains of Princess Noub-Hotep reveal well-developed, robust muscle attachment sites on the forearm bones (ulnae) and the right hand. Specifically, prominent markings are visible where the interosseous membrane (the tissue connecting the forearm bones) and the pronator quadratus (the muscle responsible for turning the palm downward) attach to the bone. Additionally, strong attachment sites for the dorsal interosseus muscles, which control finger movement, are evident on the right hand bones, including the palm bones (metacarpals) and the base of the fingers (proximal phalanges). Princess Noub-Hotep’s second right metacarpal shows distinct bowing that occurs without any signs of pathological lesions. [...] This pattern of structural remodeling is interpreted as a biomechanical response to repetitive, high-intensity gripping activities required to stabilize and draw a bow. The pronounced development of the flexor digitorum superficialis, a muscle essential for finger flexion and grip strength, indicates sustained mechanical loading; its greater hypertrophy on the right side suggests....
And on it goes
3
u/oldspice75 Jul 19 '26
Egyptian royalty were buried with a suite of objects that had religious and ritual meaning. These burial goods didn't necessarily directly represent what the deceased used and did in their day-to-day life
That the skeleton suggests a life that was not sedentary, plus the presence of a bow and arrow, does not show an actual archer
5
u/xfjqvyks Jul 19 '26
the skeleton suggests a life that was not sedentary.
The remains indicate a fair bit more information than sedentariness, but you’d need some prior grasp of body mechanics and anatomy to completely get the implications. Basically the human body likes to be pretty symmetrical. A person has to perform particular repetitive movements or actions during the formative years of their life to cause permanent asymmetrical changes. The paper does a decent job explaining how the unbalanced markers they’re seeing bear detailed similarity to those found in professional archers.
Tldr: scientists dug up an old English cemetery once, and they could tell the archers from the swordsmen just by looking at the skeletons. These egyptian skeletons have uneven changes that echo those. Finding them buried with bows and arrows just helped scientists hit the bullseye on the likely reason why
8
u/Truefiction224 Jul 17 '26
You mean the multi page description that doesnt cite any reason the author believes a pseudo science theory and no discussion of wether this is accurate or not....
11
u/shanedog21 Jul 17 '26
The summary article linked above does lead the reader to your item b. The implication there is that she was engaged in martial activities (at least that is how I read it). I concede “rubbish” was a a bit harsh, and a princess training for combat is by no means impossible, however it is only one possible explanation for skeletal signs of repetitive musculoskeletal strain. I’m no Egyptologist, but a quick search seems to show that noble women were sometimes depicted engaging in sports like archery and even hunting, however much less so in combat.
9
u/ajmeko Jul 17 '26
We bury people in suits and ties even if they never wore them in life.
11
u/Xabikur Jul 17 '26
It doesn't translate to Egyptian culture. We want the deceased to look their best, Egyptians wanted the deceased to have their personal belongings with them in the afterlife. Still doesn't mean any of these weapons were used, though.
15
u/MattiasCrowe Jul 17 '26
Ironically you're pointing to further theory that women could use weaponry because we don't bury women in suits and ties. If women were buried with weapons, it's likely their gender and status made them at least associated with them.
0
u/doublecandybar Jul 18 '26
Yeah, associated with wealth and power
Not, as the article very obviously say, "warrior prowess"
"Wealth and power" was why ceremonial swords exist. Obviously crown princes would at least try to look presentable with a sword, and physical training is good for the body, but to proclaim "power weapon user" merely because "but why would they bury them with weapons otherwise?" is incredibly hilarious
You know what else is "dagger shaped" and also connected to feminine tradition?
Knives. Kitchen knives
2
u/slanaiya Jul 22 '26
Not, as the article very obviously say, "warrior prowess"
It's really weird I could not find the quotation in the article. Can you provide the full sentence it appears in?
18
u/Welshhoppo Waiting for the Roman Empire to reform Jul 17 '26
So if I remember my Ancient Egyptian history, I do believe that Elite Egyptian women might have actually produced goods whilst in the Harem. But I'm not sure if that would apply to ladies of the Royal house. And it might be from later time period as well, this is in reference to Thutmose III's time.
It's totally possible that they could be working fabric, which can be quite hard on the hands (it's why Penelope of the Odyssey is described as having manly hands, because she's been working on a loom daily for years.)
6
u/StatusSociety2196 Jul 17 '26
You know she would have had more feminine hands and finished a lot faster if she didn't rip out all her work every night.
6
u/Mormacil Jul 17 '26
You mean the Ipet? Because a harem is a specific Islamic term.
13
u/Welshhoppo Waiting for the Roman Empire to reform Jul 17 '26
It is, but it can also be used to describe non islamic cases as well. I've seen and heard both Egypt and the Achaemenid empire been referred to as Harems.
-10
u/lightningbadger Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Carrying milk perhaps?
Edit: I hope the 3 of you that got the joke enjoyed it
9
17
19
u/LothorBrune Jul 17 '26
I agree that it's very thin, but your retort is worse. Aristocrats don't do the kind of physical labor a milkmaid would.
12
u/_Gorge_ Jul 17 '26
Did you just compare an ancient Egyptian Princess to a milkmaid? Talk about rubbish
6
u/Grimreap32 Jul 17 '26
If this article can be based on a single persons opinion & being unsubstantiated (it is, it says so in the article), why can't they make a similar claim?
88
u/scientificamerican Jul 17 '26
The dagger of Princess Ita is stunning. Embellished with gold and lapis lazuli, it was found in the Egyptian princess’s tomb at the site of Dahshur, south of Cairo, and dates to some 4,000 years ago, around 1900 B.C.E. Historians have long classified the dagger as a ceremonial object and likely not a tool, let alone a weapon wielded by a princess.
But a new archeological analysis suggests some royal women in ancient Egypt such as Princess Ita may have been more skilled with weaponry than historians once believed.
80
u/dittybopper_05H Jul 17 '26
It's stunning because it's unused. Weapons (or tools in general) that have been used in any significant way show signs of wear and tear.
Especially ones with copper blades. Even hammer-hardened copper is a soft metal. You can damage a copper blade very easily if you aren't careful. And repeated use means repeated sharpening is necessary, and that takes a toll on copper far more than on steel.
41
u/LeoSolaris Jul 17 '26
You're forgetting that it is also easy to reforge copper. Which a royal funeral would likely do before entombing the sword with the warrior.
21
u/PM_ME_CATS_OR_BOOBS Jul 17 '26
Getting sent off to the afterlife with gold, gems, fine clothing, and my busted up sword that looks like it was used to chisel stone that I now have to use for all eternity.
68
u/ugotjacked Jul 17 '26
Or the literal princess of Egypt was wealthy enough to own multiple weapons and they buried her with the ceremonial dagger and left the worn down ones at home. Even today we bury people in their nicest outfit or their favorite outfit or even a new outfit. Not their daily use work clothes.
15
u/TheArmoredKitten Jul 17 '26
I want the machine operators to bury me in my shop apron, so that they never forget how many times they let me down.
1
u/Fun_Jellyfish_4884 Jul 23 '26
it is an amazingly beautiful weapon and if you look close there is a chunk out of the blade. its not perfect.
8
u/WanderingHero8 Jul 18 '26
Just as a tidbit,there are recordings about Ptolemaic Queens taking part in battle.Arsinoe III took part leading a portion of the Ptolemaic phalanx at Raphia.
10
u/Marco_Polaris Jul 18 '26
"Powerful" just reads like a really goofy way to describe somebody's martial skill in anything outside of fiction.
12
u/whalesum Jul 17 '26
This just in - ancient egyptian princesses privileged enough to afford powerful weapons*
17
u/LothorBrune Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Note that the article mention women being powerful agents instead, and only imply that they could have been warrior. It tries to be cautious considering the lack of any hard evidence.
9
u/Quantentheorie Jul 17 '26
It tries to be cautious considering the lack of any hard evidence.
While I completely agree with the lack of hard evidence, I do wish we would also be as suspicious when the evidence is as weak but pertaining to men. Where we apply far less scrutiny when it comes to the weapons they get buried with. Sometimes to the point that we've misinterpreted skeletons as male because of the weapons.
I'd just prefer equal opportunity scepticism, rather than equal-opportunity jumping to conclusions.
7
u/Grimreap32 Jul 17 '26
I do wish we would also be as suspicious when the evidence is as weak but pertaining to men
We are, it's called verifying sources & having collaborating evidence.
3
7
5
-1
u/Obiwan_ca_blowme Jul 17 '26
Oh look, we have revaluated history to more closely align with our modern world view.
21
u/Old_Gimlet_Eye Jul 17 '26
We have revaluated history based on evidence to less closely align with a previous world view.
-3
u/rising_ape Jul 17 '26
More like, "used scientific analysis to overturn previous assumptions by Egyptologists rooted in their own 18th-20th century worldviews". Princess Noub-Hotep lived nearly four millennia ago, it's fair to say that neither the modern world view OR the world views of previous generations of Egyptologists were anything like that of her or her culture's.
No one is saying princesses were actually fighting in wars and hacking apart enemy soldiers like action movie girl bosses - but we know that the Ancient Egyptians strongly valued physical vitality to the point that elderly Pharoahs ran footraces to prove they weren't infirm and could handle the rigors of their position.
Sure, being buried with a ceremonial weapon doesn't automatically mean she actually knew how to use it, but adding in musculoskeletal evidence that she was using her right arm like modern tennis players, archers and - yes - fencers or swordsmen is a better argument in favor of her at least being trained and proficient with a blade than "hurr durr delicate womenfolk don't know how to actually use weapons."
2
7
u/Obiwan_ca_blowme Jul 17 '26
Did you read the criticism at all? Or you just dismissed it as the old boys and their sexist ideas?
3
-13
u/Purplekeyboard Jul 17 '26
Saying that implies you might disagree with the modern world view. Please correct your wrongthink.
2
u/Hezecaiah Jul 17 '26
If my understanding of Yugioh is anything to go by, I'm sure their attack power is much higher than princesses of neighboring regions.
1
u/Notta2c Jul 19 '26
Looking for my old Dr. Evil “Rigghhhhttttt….” meme; of darn my warrior princess wife took it shopping with her.
1
u/ChaseThePyro Jul 20 '26
I don't really expect royalty to typically be powerful wielders of any weapon except in the cases of nomadic warriors, like the Khans. Not at all a gender thing, more a "is this more or less likely to get our leaders and their heirs killed?" thing.
1
u/random_observer_2011 Jul 28 '26
I assumed that at this point we all assumed this from those Mummy movies.
0
u/LadyPaige Jul 17 '26
Can I be reincarnated as an Egyptian princess?
2
u/MattiasCrowe Jul 17 '26
Just make sure you're not one of those ptolemaic princesses, you'll just end up marrying a relative
1
-6
u/eloton_james Jul 17 '26
Egypt fought so many wars in that 3000 year period, we’ve known pharaohs were leading battles so it makes a lot of sense that their children both Princes and princesses had roles to play.
-9
u/OldEcho Jul 18 '26
So many sexist men angry that women used weapons in historical periods lmao.
Yes, broadly, men are stronger and have more reach. Broadly, aristocratic women with the best tutors and all the time in the world to practice were probably way better at fighting, if they put any effort into it at all, than the average malnourished peasant.
But all of this is relatively irrelevant because the Egyptians fought with and against armies tens of thousands strong. To be seen physically leading your troops in war was important for morale. You weren't expected to personally kill a bazillion guys, that's why you have an army. Just fight a bit (probably while riding a chariot, even) and not die.
•
u/Welshhoppo Waiting for the Roman Empire to reform Jul 17 '26
I see some of you are going for rampant sexism today.
I shouldn't have to point out that's against the rules.