"Power in ancient Egypt: beyond the absolutist Pharaoh". In: Shane M. Thompson & Jessica Tomkins (eds.), Understanding Power in the Ancient Near East. Vol. I: Approaches, Brill, Leiden-Boston, pp. 227-268. Juan Carlos Moreno Garcia

https://www.academia.edu/125993685/_Power_in_ancient_Egypt_beyond_the_absolutist_Pharaoh_In_Shane_M_Thompson_and_Jessica_Tomkins_eds_Understanding_Power_in_the_Ancient_Near_East_Vol_I_Approaches_Brill_Leiden_Boston_pp_227_268?email_work_card=title It is usual to interpret pharaonic Egypt as the most achieved example of an ancient centralized bureaucratic state, ruled by an absolutist monarch helped by an army of scribes and dignitaries that executed his orders meticulously. However, this is the idealized image conveyed by the official sources, which emphasized the central role of the pharaoh and the perfection of the administrative organization under his command. In reality, things were quite different and written and archaeological evidence help balance such impression. Egypt was a patchwork of regions and potential power centers that required considerable ability to keep together. This means that kings should negotiate with the powerful families that ruled such regions, respect their interests and build alliances trough marriages, promotions and rewards. If kings failed to achieve these goals, secession followed and the monarchy collapsed, replaced by regional polities fighting for supremacy. This means that the kings’ capacity to build an efficient tax system and collect wealth depended on their success to curb down the ambitions of provincial leaders and avoid that the latter retained too much resources in their hands. As a consequence, politics played an important role in the organization of power, a role usually concealed behind the topos of the absolutist pharaoh, but which emerged nevertheless in the form of palatial conspiracies, factional fighting, removal of dignitaries and appointment of local officials to high positions in the central administration. Politics, negotiation and reconciliation of diverging interests were thus crucial for the stability of the kingdom.