inspired by ambitions
unknown to the Egyptians of earlier times. To this younger race Africa
no longer offered a sufficiently wide or attractive field; the whole
country was their own as far as the confluence of the two Niles, and the
Theban gods were worshipped at Napata no less devoutly than at Thebes
itself. What remained to be conquered in that direction was scarcely
worth the trouble of reducing to a province or of annexing as a colony;
it comprised a number of tribes hopelessly divided among themselves,
and consequently, in spite of their renowned bravery, without power of
resistance. Light columns of troops, drafted at intervals on either
side of the river, ensured order among the submissive, or despoiled the
refractory of their possessions in cattle, slaves, and precious stones.
Thutmosis I. had to repress, however, very shortly after his accession,
a revolt of these borderers at the second and third cataracts, but they
were easily overcome in a campaign of a few days' duration, in which the
two Ahmosis of Al-Kab took an honourable part. There was, as usual, an
encounter of the two fleets in the middle of the river: the young king
himself attacked the enemy's chief, pierced him with his first arrow,
and made a considerable number of prisoners. Thutmosis had the corpse of
the chief suspended as a trophy in front of the royal ship, and sailed
northwards towards Thebes, where, however, he was not destined to
remain long.* An ample field of action presented itself to him in the
north-east, affording scope for great exploits, as profitable as they
were glorious.**

* That this expedition must be placed at the beginning of
the king's reign, in his first year, is shown by two facts:
(1) It precedes the Syrian campaign in the biography of the
two Ahmosis of El-Kab; (2) the Syrian campaign must have
ended in the second year of the reign, since Thutmosis I.,
on the stele of Tombos which bears that date, gives
particulars of the course of the Euphrates, and records the
submission of the countries watered by that river. The date
of the invasion may be placed between 2300 and 2250 B.C.; if
we count 661 years for the three dynasties together, as
Erman proposes, we find that the accession of Ahmosis would
fall between 1640 and 1590. I should place it provisionally
in the year 1600, in order not to leave the position of the
succeeding reigns uncertain; I est