Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

getBusyChild t1_isevtna wrote

Why did the Ancient Egyptians after the expedition to the Land of Punt, not return and completely conquer the region? They did with Nubia that was the land of Gold, said region of Punt had incense etc.

Why would they have been comfortable with having to simply trade i.e. paying for said luxuries rather simply owning controlling the region as was done in Nubia?

3

Stalins_Moustachio t1_isf3de9 wrote

My best guess would be that they may have seen it as a regional power and, considering the distance and Nubia's wealth, a military campaign may not have been feasible, sustainable, or winnable. Adding to that, the Pharoah at the time, Hatshepsut, had focused her reign on developing trade networks and undergoing large temple and public works construction projects, rather than conquest like Ramses II.

5

TheBattler t1_ishrw8m wrote

The Egyptians didn't have chariots or horses until 1600 BC so their main method of supply/troop transport was via boat on the Nile. Wherever the Land of Punt was, it didn't seem to be reachable by the Nile.

If Punt was in Arabia, the Egyptians would have had to build an expensive invasion fleet of seaworthy ships, which is outside of their expertise with river ships. If Punt is in Eritrea or Ethiopia, it's too far from the Nile; there is a tributary that flows in that general area called the Atbarah AKA Black Nile but it's not as big or deep as the Nile and not conducive to large boats.

By the time the Egyptians got horses, Kush/Nubia was very strong and the Egyptians had too many problems in the North (the Hittites, whoever was in control of Mesopotamia, the Sea Peoples) to really expand into where Punt might be.

1