In Gardiner’s excerpt, Hatshepsut was showcased as a deviation from his original topic of discussion, Thutmose II and III. Made out to be a sudden, minor and unfair oddity that occurred during Thutmose III’s reign, her rise to power is not something Gardiner discusses in detail (Gardiner 1961:181-2). When explaining the end of Hatshepsut’s reign, he immediately continues Thutmose III’s narrative since it is then that he finally becomes “free” of his step-mother, who he “hated” for putting in the background (Gardiner 1961:182, 188). Thutmose III is clearly the active, and more important, subject here. This differs from Robins, who stresses that her rise to power could been done on a whim as well as something not done for solely selfish reasons (Robins 1993:47). Gardiner also states that Hatshepsut “required” masculine support in order to succeed, while Robins stresses the roles of other female royalty, like her mother Ahmose Neferari and her daughter Neferura, in the past (Gardiner 1961:184) (Robins 1993:46, 48). As such, it is probable that an author’s opinion regarding to whom Hatshepsut’s success is owed quite accurately indicates how much of a biased …show more content…
Hatshepsut’s reign especially leaves much to the scholar’s speculation and interpretation since little evidence is left. The reader must acknowledge how an author’s views may be construed by sexism and other concepts prevalent in their time. What these five authors imply about Hatshepsut’s personality and attitude concerning her political ascent, her usage of propaganda, and her achievements during that time all differ from each other, some more drastically than others. This certainly shows that when one reads of history, their research should span as far as possible in order to most accurately inform themselves of what truly happened; it is from there that they can formulate the best
Queen Hatshepsut, who ruled Egypt during the 18th dynasty, was one of a small handful of female pharaohs. Despite her many achievements, her reign is most remembered for the fact that she was a woman. Her unique story has been a source for dispute among scholars, which has led to a number of conflicting views. The small amount of Hatshepsut’s life that has been documented does not allow us to see the more intimate details of her life. Historians have a broad range of opinions on her, but one thing is certain: her reign provided Egypt with a period of peace and prosperity after 100 years of foreign rule. There are a number of theories involving Hatshepsut’s personal and public life.
Hatshepsut’s posture of sitting down on the throne gives off great reverence. Her pose gives the idea of royalty and respect as she is sitting rather calmly but also straight up. Hatshepsut’s hands are laid flat on the top of her knees. Her position is very static and still. There is no urgency in her posture, seemingly peaceful and serene. However,...
After her father’s death when she was 12, Hatshepsut became the queen of Egypt when she married her half-brother and he became the Pharaoh Thutmose II. He was the son of her father and one of his second wives. During the reign of Thutmose II, Hatshepsut assumed the traditional role of queen and principal wife. During their marriage, Hatshepsut and Thutmose II were not able to produce a male heir but had a daughter named Neferure. Because she was the first and main wife and queen of Thutmose II, when he died, she proclaimed herself the fifth Pharaoh while denying the old Kings son, her nephew.
After Hatshepsut 's death, Thutmose III destroyed or defaced her monuments, erased many of her inscriptions and constructed a wall around her obelisks. Thutmose III did that to take the credit for all of Queen Hatshepsut’s work in 22 year period that she reigned. It was unlikely, for women to be king and Thutmose III took all her work as his own work. Though past Egyptologists held that it was merely the queen’s ambition that drove her, more recent scholars have suggested that the move might have been due to a political crisis, such as a threat from another branch of the royal family, and that Hatshepsut may have been acting to save the throne for her stepson. Hatshepsut was only the third woman to become pharaoh in 3,000 years of ancient Egyptian history, and the first to attain the full power of the position. Cleopatra, who also exercised such power, would rule some 14 centuries later. There have been rumors and stories about Thutmose III wanted to overrule Queen Hatshepsut reign. It was his reign actually, but Thutmose III was a child and could not rule Egypt. Thutmose I and Ahmose rulers of Egypt, and was the mother and father of Hatshepsut. As people talked back then Queen Hatshepsut was the first female to become Egypt’s king. She ruled for over 22 years of reign in peace. She was married to Thutmose II, and had
To understand the struggles of Hatshepsut, there has to be some history about her journey to become Pharaoh of Egypt. History tells that most heirs come from the bloodline of the past royal family. Hatshepsut had that advantage, because “Thutmose had no surviving sons with his...
Hatshepsut was Thutmose II’s queen, she became regent for Thutmose III ca. 1479 at his death. Egypt prospered under her reign. When Thutmose III was old enough to rule, it was decided that Hatshepsut and Thutmose III would reign together as co-regents. Hatshepsut and Thutmose III’s co-rule may have been strained. After Hatshepsut’s death, Thutmose III defiled or removed many statues, paintings or writings of Hatshepsut life and reign. Not many records exist that show what type of relationship existed between Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. Her name is not listed in the official lists at Karnak and Abydos, Thutmose III had it removed. Thutmose III had it recorded that he assumed the crown in 1490 upon his father’s death. Hatshepsut made the same claim in reverse, but she acknowledged the co-regency but claimed the position of King. Over time, the interpretation of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III’s reign has changed. One biography (Wells) gives the impression that if they could have gotten away with killing each other they would have. The other (Tyldesley) gives a more objective view, and explains that there just isn’t proof of a volatile relationship between the two. Almost as if they were co-regents and each had their strong suit and left each other to it. She (Tyldesley) describes the previous notion of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III’s relationship as overly dramatic.
“The pharaoh of ancient Egypt is normally described as the typical example of a divine ruler” (J. Ray, Hatshepsut, Vol 44, Issue 5, 1994) The ancient Egyptian world has seen hundreds of pharaohs; some excelled and some didn’t. Many of the pharaohs were men, only few females succeeded in gaining such great power, yet some did... specifically Hatshepsut. Few pharaohs of the 18Th Dynasty have aroused as much controversy as Hatshepsut. Hatshepsut was the sixth pharaoh of the New Kingdom and set up co-regency with her nephew and stepson, Thutmose III. (J. Lawless, Hatshepsut, a Personal Study, 2010) Hatshepsut created many junctions in history through politics, building programmes and military. This makes her so recognised in modern day studies, though almost all evidence of her existence has been partially or completely destroyed. Due to this many theories have been created about the standard of her reign.
During the 18th Dynasty, Hatshepsut was the Queen of Egypt that “held effective power” for over two decades (“Hatshepsut”). After the death of her husband, Thutmose II, his son Thutmose III came into throne and they were “seen as equals” within a few years (“Hatshepsut”). Hatshepsut did not have a military, so she led a couple of successful expeditions as a substitute. Her most notable expedition was to the Land of Punt which “occupied the 8th and 9th years” of her ruling (Ray).
Catherine de Medici’s culpability for the turbulent events in France in 1559-72 remains a topic of some debate. Highly personal protestant pamphleteers associated Catherine with sinister comparisons to the contemporary evil Machiavelli which eventually developed into the ‘Black Legend’. Jean.H. Mariégol consolidates this interpretation, overwhelmingly assuming Catherine’s wickedness; the Queen Mother was deemed to be acting for ‘personal aggrandizement’ without an interest in the monarchy. Neale provides a corrective arguing a ‘dominant maternalism’ drove Catherine’s policies. Sutherland critiques Neale, suggesting he is guilty of using misconceived qualifying phrases from the ‘Black Legend’ stemming from the contemporary pamphlets, instead Sutherland and Heller attempt to disentangle Catherine from the context of the xenophobic Protestant pamphleteers that shaped much of Catherine’s historical analysis thus far, revealing the ‘politique’ whose moderate policies were a force for stability. Knecht is most convincing in his assertion that whilst the ‘Black Legend’ is a misrepresentation of her character and policies, Sutherland goes too far in whitewashing Catherine. Ironically, Catherine as a ‘politique’ aimed for complex policies and yet her role in French politics was over-simplified by contemporaries and arguably even by modern historians contributing to overly polarised interpretations. Instead we should bear in mind the violent pressures Catherine faced in the context of the collapse of monarchical authority and follow the more nuanced interpretation of her role.
Before Hatshepsut, there were other woman who attempted to rule over Egypt. Every time a woman came to power, there was some sort of problem that was left for them to solve. Unlike Hatshepsut, the other woman did not have any confidence to name themselves pharaoh and they did not grow up in the royal family like Hatshepsut did. In paragraph 13, it states, “A few women had tried to rule Egypt before, but never would search valid claim to the throne,” and, “These women had not ruled long or well and neither had had the audacity to proclaim herself pharaoh.” These quotes explain that Hatshepsut was recognized for taking power at a good time and not stepping
Theodora Jankowski’s article argues that despite the Duchess’ failure to create a “successful means by which she can rule as a woman sovereign”, she defies “Jacobean society’s views” (Jankowski 222) concerning the depiction of the female body and sexuality. The contradictions in the notion of a female ruler are explored in the ways the Duchess is presented using her “body natural and body politic” (222). Jankowski points out that instead of using her body’s potential for power, the Duchess attempts to divorce her natural body from her political body, and in turn separates her public and private lives. By keeping her second marriage and children private, she creates a triple position as wife, mother, and ruler, and therefore becomes a threatening figure, especially to her brother Ferdinand who sees her private life as unacceptable and over sexual. Jankowski explores the Duchess’ journey from ruler, to wife and mother, to eventually a suffering martyr. She concludes that even though the Duchess refuses to unite her body natural and her body politic, the nature of her marriage is revolutionary and challenges social custom and foregrounds her character in its subversive ideology with great power (244).
Hatshepsut was born in 1508 B.C., daughter of Thutmose I. Thutmose I was the third king of the 18th century, son of a military man. He did not take to the throne as son of a former king, but due to unknown circumstances he rose to the throne. His reign ended in 1493B.C.. Thutmose I was succeeded by his son Thutmose II. After the death of Hatshepsut’s father at age twelve,
Hatshepsut was born into a wealthy, educated family; however, she displayed qualities that are innate among most great leaders. She was courageous, ambitious, confident, and innovative. This allowed her to become the female Pharaoh during the 18th dynasty, and in a male dominating society, this was seen as an accomplishment among historians analyzing women in power. Hatshepsut’s will to adopt the role as Pharaoh prior to her reign portrays her as a strong, independent female leader. Her building projects and further establishment of trade had a positive impact on Ancient Egypt socially, economically, and intellectually by creating opportunity and further expanding their knowledge. Ultimately, Hatshepsut is considered to be a very successful and influential leader within Ancient history.
I believe in the value of leadership. Leadership can take many forms. When you take advantage of it, you will thrive. Authoritarian leaders lead by direction and command such as in the military. Inspirational or authoritative leaders lead by cooperation and example. I believe an example of an authoritarian leader would be Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific during World War II and General George S. Patton, Commander of the Third Army in Europe. Without a good, strong leader who can make the best decision for the success, or survival of the group, business or, for that matter, the country, failure is predictable. When I say strong leader, I mean one that can listen and hear their people, consider their thoughts, plans
Leadership and the study of it has roots in the beginning of civilization, Egyptian rulers, Greek heroes, and biblical patriarchs all have one thing in common-leadership (THE HISTORY OF LEADERSHIP FOCUS,2005). There are numerous definitions and theories of leadership, however there are enough similarities in the definitions to conclude that leadership is the effort of influence and the power to induce compliance (Wren,1995).The organizational focus of the leader has evolved over this same period, early organizations with authoritarian leaders who believed employees were intrinsically lazy transitioned into way to make work environments more conducive to increased productivity rates (THE HISTORY OF LEADERSHIP FOCUS,2005).