|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thutmose III article.|
|Thutmose III has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on April 24, 2009, April 24, 2010, April 24, 2011, and April 24, 2014.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
There seems to be something of a consensus that Thutmose III was a very good leader in all aspects, not just in his military efforts. Should we mention this in the articile?
sorry if this is the wrong place for this... i can't quite figure out where the right place to mention it would be... in the intro to the article it mentions that thutmose hated hatshpesut for usurping his power, or something to that effect. just to put it simply, this is an idea that has been very thoroughly discredited and shouldn't be in the article.
- Good catch. The article itself suggests this isn't true, so I've removed it from the lead (the introduction). Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The two dates for Thutmose's rule now don't match. The first par says 1479, which Anglius corrected to, and that has been reverted to 1458. It's all very well blanket reverting those you think are trolls, Dave, but maybe you could check that your reversion is actually an improvement.
Grace Note 01:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Manetho and Tuthmose III
--IonnKorr 22:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've straightened out the formatting of the page, not perfectly, however the right alignment of the picture of the statue was shoving all the text past the pharaohbox. Furthermore, the into paragraph is a little long for an article, especially considering the length of all the rest. So this could use some reformatting across the board. Thanatosimii 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I've reformatted a good amount of the page, mostly to make actual sections out of that ridiculously long introduction. I'm also going to put this here: Image:Egypt.Thutmose-III.statue.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Granite statue of Pharaoh Thutmose III in Cairo Museum because it's causing a bit of an image jam. when there is a section that has to do with him as a builder pharaoh, it can be put in there, but we don't need two lead statue images. Thanatosimii 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't need cleanup anymore, just expansion. So, while I suggest that the article have needed parts added, the particular tag in place is not helpful. I will accordingly be removing it. Anyone who sees a specific terrifically lacking section should put the particular "Please expand this section" tag on it. Thanatosimii 19:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it's time for me to turn my attention officially to this article. This is probably the most important egyptian ever to have lived, so I've been putting it off for a while; however I now intend to, at least, expand the campaign section until it is complete and somewhat exhaustive. Somthing to think about, however -- Thutmose III's campaigns could almost be an article in their own right, so perhaps if they get too large, they should be put in a seperate article and summarized here. Just a potential thought, however; I'm personally ambivolent. Thanatosimii 21:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
How can you say that Thutmose was probably the most important egyptian ever to have lived? Because almost every egyptologist belives that the most important egyptian was of course Ramesses the great who left some of the greatest monuments in the whole egypt(about 70%of buildings that canbe seen to this day, and every pharaoh after him, was most respecting and admiering not Thutmose but Ramesses. While Thutmose left an empire that we can not see any longer, Ramesses monuments stand tall reminding us upon the greatest man to have ever walked the ancient egyptien land. R. also had much more children and wifes, and was much taller,lived and ruled longer and was quite possibly even physicly stronger.
Um... we can say that because almost every egyptologist does say that, contrary to your claim. Thanatosimii 01:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
"we can say that because almost every egyptologist does say that" that claim is very strange because in my view and the wiew of others is what the egyptologist say it is actualy the opposite. He was a greatest warrior, that is for certan, but he was certanly not the greatest and most important king. Today it is known much more about Ramesses the great than Thutmosis III. In other words T. is a more obscure pharaoh in comparison to the pharaoh with the title "the great".
- No offense, but really, so what? I am not sure what the point of this argument is about. This is an article about Thutmose III, not Ramssess II, and each have their own article. Keep in mind that Ramessess II lived much longer than Thutmose III did and thereby had much more time to construct monuments, have more wives, and to "grow tall". ;-) But still, so what? This is all just useless bickering about what constitutes "greatness" but unless you contribute something to either article that is substantive and that can be backed up with citations from recognized experts this discussion doesn't really lead anywhere useful. Captmondo 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- How can you say that Ramesses was was probably the most important egyptian ever to have lived? Apparently, he carved his name on other people's statues and temples and such. He was called "the great" because when egyptologists first found all these statues and temples and such, with scenes of him winning the Battle of Kadesh, they thought that he was a really great pharaoh. Later, they discovered that (a) he had an interesting habit of usurping other peoples statues and temples, and (b) he didn't win at Kadesh. So in actual fact, Thutmose III probably trumps Ramesses II, even though he was only 5 foot tall. ~The Little Green Man from Mars(My Page)(Where do I live?) 01:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well...usurping was a kind of a habit of egyptian kings, Thutmose did it also. Unlike Thutmose who was also a determend destroyer (defacing monuments of Hatshepsut), Ramesses built abot 70% of temples in Egypt, and what he did not build he at least rebuilt. As Ramesses was a propagandist, so where other pharaohs, Thutmose clamed to have crushed the Muttani at Aleppo, but his proclamed victory was in fact just a stalemate. Ramesses was called a Great Ancestor by later phararaohs and egyptians who looked at him as a perfect and most succesful pharaoh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
How did Thutmose die
How did Thutmose die? -unsigned
We don't know. We just know when he died, which is actually a piece of information we don't have for most pharaohs Thanatosimii 16:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
How did Hatchepsut die? Sickness? Murderued? -unsigned Hatshepsut died of cancer. they found her mummy..
Thutmose probably died of some skin illness, but this is not certain.
I am not aware that Thutmose III was mentioned in the Amarna Letters. As far as I know the Amarna Letters only mention Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV and Tutankhamun. I was wondering if anyone could provide a reference to that claim. --JLCA 18:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- The amarna letters are to Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, Semenkhkare, and Tutankhamun. In them, however, references are made to several other kings. Thanatosimii 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Roadmap to FA
Well, that's a goal a long ways down the road... but not impossible, as Ahmose I is showing. For starters, we need a good outline of what would make a "complete" article.
II. Dates and Length of Reign
- (Remove Names, integrate to infobox or delete outright)
III. Military Campagins
- A. First Campaign
- B. Tours of Canaan and Syria
- C. etc., etc... The wars of Thutmose III in palestine would probably be a good source for this period
IV. Damnatio Memoriae of Hatshepsut
V. Arts and Archetectural Developments
VI. Monument Construction
- A. Karnak
- B. Other Temples
- C. Statuary
- D. Tomb
VII. Mummy (move any death stuff into this section, unless fits better in his tomb's section)
VIII. Sucession (Thutmose had a coregency with Amenhotep II. It was apparently only a few months, but some have argued for two years or so. For this, Murnane's dissertation Ancient Egyptian Coregencies is a must. I wish I still had that one lying around)
I'll be working with this model until someone decides we need changes. Thanatosimii 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is a good general outline. There are a few things I would suggest adding/changing:
FamilyLife (this would allow us to have several of the following headings as sub-headings, separating the biography of the man from his works/campaigns)
- I.B Co-regency period with Hatshepsut (more on what role he played during this time, how prospering trade lead to the economic wealth inherited upon Hatshepsut's death, carry-through of important officials from H's reign, etc)
IV.VII. Damnatio Memoriae of Hatshepsut (suggest moving this to later in the article, since evidence shows this occurred late into his reign (and into the early part of the reign of Amenhotep II)
- VIII. Co-regency with Amenhotep II (there's fairly good evidence of this, and would work well with the former)
- I've gone and done a very rough edit pass on the article already, sprinkling citation needed's in places where I think evidence either needs to be referenced or the passage in question changes or removed.
- Some more specific comments on areas needing improvement as I see it:
- Intro paragraph needs to be expanded (though this is arguably the last task after the other issues have been tackled). I agree that the names ought to be removed as they are covered in the pharaoh infobox. There is no mention that he was co-regent and ultimately successor to Hatshepsut, which ought to be there. More detail needed on how/why of campaigns and temple building.
- "Family" section: in general, awkwardly written, and explains little. I ought to be able to help considerably in this section.
- "Names": This section is interesting, but could probably be folded under "Family" as a subsection. Didn't know he was referenced in the Amarna Letters (and I just realized I didn't ask for a citation on that point; it really ought to).
- "Dates and Length of Reign": I've cleaned this section up a bit, but it strikes me as being thin. The relevance of the Sothic Cycle ought to be mentioned; you and I know what it is and how it applies, but this ought to be spelled out briefly.
- "Thutmose's military campaigns": This is already looking pretty good in terms of referenced info. Suggest having "See also" references immediately after "First Campaign" to the Battle of Megiddo. I note that the Siege of Megiddo leads to the same page, so the (see Siege of Megiddo) reference in para 3 can be removed if that is done.
- "Damnatio memoriae of Hatshepsut": Can't help but be uncomfortable about using a fundamentally Latin term for the header, and think it awkward to have part of the header linked; would prefer that if that term is to be used that it be linked to from within the article rather than from the header. I note that Shaw uses a phrase along the lines of "the desecration of Hatshepsut's memorials", which may be more accurate in intent than the all-out obliteration implied by the Latin term, especially in a legal sense, which has little analogy within Egyptian culture. (IMHO ;-)
- I had never heard of Akhenaten linked to vandalizing (oops, am getting overly Latinate again) Hatshepsut's memorials, and have asked for a reference there. The recent discovery of the "nine golden cartouches" (and plenty of non-golden ones) is interesting, but sheds no further light on the issue as it stands. I can take care of that one.
- "Monumental Construction": Not my area of expertise, but as you have indicated already, in much need of expansion.
- "Death and burial": I can add more to this section over time as well. Can we safely shorten the reference to the likely date of death, since it is already mentioned earlier in the article?
- Well, that's plenty of work right there. Let me know what you think. Cheers! Captmondo 02:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Intro": names removed, co-regent/successor to Hatshepsut added, how/why of campaigns and temple building have been added (I think, or they are at least satisfactory),
- "Family": Still awkward, though it seems to explain enough. I will try to re-word the info that is there to make it flow a bit more smoothly.
- "Names": Section seems to have been removed or merged as suggested.
- "Dates and length of reign": Seems to be beefy enough, though the Sothic cycle does need a bit more explaining to put reference to "circumstances surrounding the recording of a Heliacal Rise of Sothis in the reign of Amenhotep I" into perspective.
- "Thutmose's military campaigns": Certainly enough referenced info. Could possibly use some whittling down to make it more focused on info directly related to Thuthmose, or the section could be moved to a separate article and just be outlined here. I'll look for an image to add to this section as well to add a little visual interest.
- "Damnatio memoriae of Hatshepsut": de-Latinised, seems to have been referenced
- "Monumental Construction": images are a mess... I'll clean up the formatting on this section. Not sure if it has expanded since Captmondo's original post but it seems to have enough info at least.
- "Death and burial": lots of info on the mummy, not so much about his death (probably not much known about it) or what happened afterwards. Perhaps a small section on what happened after his reign could be added below this section? Just to give the article a clear beginning (about the man) middle (his work and conquests) and end (his death and the results/what happened after). Not sure if it is necessary, just a thought on the fly :)
- Other/new: The "see also" section is pitiful and could use some more links, references could probably be columnised, and external links could use an addition or two. In general the article needs some copyediting for style and to clear up some complicated sentences and ambiguities, which is what I will be working on.
Feel free to add/expand/change anything in my list above; especially if I was incorrect. This update was just written after scanning the article, I didn't check the history. And congrats to everyone who has been adding info, it looks great! -- Editor at Large • talk 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
"Thutmose III was a great builder pharaoh" - this in not entirely correct so i think it would be better to call him a worrior pharaoh. He built many temples but this is unimportant in comparison with his great military activity. (preceeding unsigned comment left by Harioris
- Builder pharaoh and Warrior pharaoh are not in contradiction with one another. His military skill is already extolled in the huge section on his wars, where it does say he is regarded as the best warrior pharaoh. However, the fact that he comes in second to Ramses II when it comes to building does not mean he was not a great builder pharaoh.
Thanatosimii 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
While talking about the second builder pharaoh after Ramesses II, this is not the case. The second greatest builder pharaoh was almost certanly Amenhotep III, And after him most probably comes Seti I whose monuments (specificly the art from his time) are the highiest quality of any pharaoh before or after. In the building projects that Seti I undertook, the quality of the reliefs and other designs were probably never surpassed by later rulers. And we must not forget Snofru who was also a great builder, but lived much earlier. And the destruction of the monuments of Hatshepsut, the most simple reason could be simple jalaousy because Thutmose´s monuments could not rivel those of his stepmother who overshadowed him.Harioris 23:46 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Amenhotep III's constructions were indeed very large and numerous, and seti's were indeed great in quality, however in quantity it becomes hard to beat Thutmose III. Most of his temples are now destroyed, however this by no means means that he was not in his time a great builder pharaoh. Quality is subjective. Quantity is not subjective, and the quantity of Thutmose was indeed high enough to call him a great builder pharaoh. But all this beside – published sources call him a great builder pharaoh and consistantly extoll his construction works, so I do not see a problem keeping that phrase in there. It doesn't mean he was the best, and it doesn't mean that was his greatest trait, it just means he was very good, and indeed his works clearly outshadow those of Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Amenhotep II, and Thutmose IV all put together. I don't see the problem with calling him a great builder.Thanatosimii 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but what I mean is that his monuments, although numerous, are all very small. And his monuments (most of them) were very weak in quality, so we can no longer see them. A great builder would have to, beside making a large number of monuments, make them powerful and strong enough to servive the elements of time. Harioris 12:29 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are you sure we're looking at the same monuments? Ther're not exactly very small, they've just been mostly destroyed by later constructors or removed. A great builder is simply one whose building programs are active; it can have nothing to do with the quality, because that's subjective. And really, Egyptologists say regularly that he was a great builder, so that really appears to be the only big criterion. Thanatosimii 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Which egyptologists say that he was a great builder? Name them. If you just compare the size of the building ( an example) that he build at Luxor wiht the buildings of Ramesses II and Amenhotep III his part of the temple seems very small. The onely great mounument that Thutmose had build is the great festival hall at Karnak. Many egyptologists say about him "he was not interested in building". All his other building work on other locations is not very important. When a builder pharaoh, such as the ones I hade previously mentioned, builds, he bulds BIG, and that is the point. Name your monuments so that I can see if we are looking at the same ones. Harioris 11:31 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Grimal goes on for two pages listing his construction at karnak alone, the Oxford encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt attributes fifty temples to him. Gardiner speaks similarly about the size of his efforts at Karnak. However, his stuff has now been mostly torn down. If the temple of Luxor had been torn down and rebuilt by the Ptolemies as well, by your criterion, he wouldn't have been a great builder either. Now, the only reason that the phrase "great builder" should be removed is if your claim that he was "Not interested in building" holds up, and I quite think that the mere mass of text dedicated to his construction efforts here makes such a claim tenuous... Thanatosimii 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the reference to Hatshepsut's co-regency should be moved to the section below, "Dates and length of reign"; it seems to take over a section that is supposed to be about his relatives and family. Some further background on his family such as grandparents and/or successors is probably needed here to give more context to who the man was rather than just "son of Thutmose II and Aset". The mention in the possible marriages sentence and the bit at the bottom about Merytre-Hatshepsut are awkward as well; there is no context to the statements "was not actually Hatshepsut's daughter" etc. Some more explanation about why this would be/was thought in the first place could probably help (note her article is lacking in explanation as to why as well). -- Editor at Large • talk 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note too that this section seems to hold the mention that Merytre-Hatshepsut was not Hatshepsut's daughter in some doubt or at least makes whether is fact or not ambiguous, while the article states "[Merytre-Hatshepsut] is not related to Queen Hatshepsut". This isnt' directly referenced/cited and I'm not sure if it is a proven fact or has just been made certain through newly-found inscriptions or manuscripts. If it's fact we should state it as a fact, and if it is not the other article needs to be changed :) -- Editor at Large • talk 17:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems odd that there is no mention of Thutmose III as a likely basis for the Greek tales of conquests by the Pharaoh "Sesostris" (aka "Sesoosis", "Vesosis"). Although his name isn't similar, his achievements in foreign conquests are as close as any Egyptian pharaoh gets, and the timing of his reign is very close to that given by Herodotus (according to whom "Sesostris" was followed by a "Pheros", then by a "Proteus", who reigned during the Trojan war, and then by "Rhampsinitus", an obvious match for Rameses II).Mrcautious (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I certainly can't find a source for that, whereas I can find a number of sources suggesting the name reflect the Pharaohs named Senwosret/Senusret. Our article on Sesostris needs references. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
See article from Science Direct at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312002270 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be some discrepancy between this article and Hatshepsut's over whether or not a co-regency, de facto or de jure, actually existed. The Hatshepsut article states that the modern consensus is that she was pharaoh alone, and that the idea of a co-regency is outdated, but gives no reference for this claim. If a co-regency did exist perhaps it should be noted in his reignal dates.
- The Hatshepsut article doesn't make a lot of sense at this point. A coregency is a period when there are two crowned kings. You can't say that Hatshepsut wasn't just a coregent, but was actually a king, because that's what a coregent is. What that sentence is probably trying to say is that Hatshepsut shoved Thut III into the background to such an extent that she reigned as if she were the sole ruler of the country.