BUCKHANNON, WV- December 8th 2025
In the long chronology of the ancient Near East, where pharaohs carved their triumphs into stone and rival kings struggled ceaselessly for dominion over the land routes of Syria and Canaan, the Battle of Megiddo stands with singular prominence; for it is the first conflict in human history for which we possess a full, continuous military account written by an eyewitness participant, preserved in hieroglyphics upon the walls of the Temple of Amun at Karnak, and attributed directly to THUTMOSE III, the warrior-pharaoh whose campaigns transformed Egypt from a regional empire into the unrivaled power of the Late Bronze Age.
The year was 1469 BCE, during the early 18th Dynasty according to the high chronology, when the king of Kadesh gathered a coalition of Canaanite city-states revolting against Egyptian dominance; a revolt centered strategically upon the ancient choke point of Megiddo, whose commanding height overlooked the trade arteries linking the Mediterranean coast with the inland valleys. The rebellion was serious enough, and widespread enough, that Thutmose himself took the field rather than allowing his generals to settle it; for the stability of Egyptian rule in the Levant depended upon swift, decisive intervention, and the pharaoh understood that a long rebellion in Canaan would invite Mitanni interference and fracture Egypt’s grasp on the vassal territories his predecessors had secured.
As recorded in the annals, the Egyptian army assembled at the fortress of Gaza and marched northward through the coastal plain, coming to a halt south of Mount Carmel where three roads led inland toward Megiddo. The coalition had entrenched itself expecting the Egyptians to choose the broad and predictable northern or southern routes; for these paths were wide, capable of accommodating the great span of chariots, supply animals, infantry columns, and the baggage trains that a Bronze Age army necessarily carried. Yet Thutmose refused those routes and instead chose the narrow central pass through Aruna; a road so constricted that two chariots could scarcely ride abreast, and so perilous that even his own advisers warned him that a single ambush could end the campaign before it began.
But the pharaoh’s gamble rested on speed; he understood that the coalition forces, expecting him at the other approaches, had arrayed their defenses improperly and could be outflanked if he appeared where no sane commander would dare venture. And so, with the army compressed into a long, thin column, the Egyptians moved through the bottleneck with immense difficulty yet with no resistance; for the enemy had not believed he would attempt it. When the Egyptians emerged into the plain of Esdraelon, the coalition army was caught unprepared, scattered into separate camps, and forced to reorganize under pressure as the Egyptians advanced rapidly toward Megiddo.
The annals describe the moment of engagement with unusual clarity; for Thutmose himself dictated the account saying that he placed his right wing to the southeast, his left wing to the northwest, and held the center personally, driving forward with the royal chariot. The coalition army broke under the first aggressive push; yet in their flight many ran not toward the open field but toward the city itself, climbing the walls or hauling themselves through the gates as the Egyptians pressed behind them. The Egyptian soldiers began to plunder the enemy camp in the moment of victory, gathering chariots, armor, and valuables rather than sealing the escape routes; and this lapse allowed the enemy leadership to barricade themselves inside Megiddo, prolonging the campaign for months.
The siege that followed was systematic; the Egyptians surrounded the city with a wall of circumvallation, cutting off movement and supplies, and waited as the coalition leaders inside exhausted their resources. The inscriptions note tribute seized, prisoners taken, and chariots captured, listing each item with almost accountant-like precision. After approximately 7 months, the besieged city capitulated; its rulers surrendered their sons and daughters as hostages, presented lavish tribute, and reaffirmed Egypt’s authority. Thutmose accepted their oaths, reestablished control over the rebellious territories, and set the pattern for the next two decades of campaigning that would push Egyptian power to the Euphrates.
The significance of Megiddo cannot be overstated; it stands as the earliest complete military narrative in recorded history, written in the pharaoh’s own name, describing disposition of troops, geography, command decisions, and the outcome of the battle with a level of clarity not seen again until the campaigns of Sargon II and the later annals of Assyria. It demonstrates the sophistication of Egyptian logistical planning, the strategic insight of Thutmose III, and the fragile balance of power that defined Canaan during the Late Bronze Age.
The record preserved at Karnak remains our first-hand foundation for this event; it is a rare survival from a world where most battles passed unrecorded except in fragmentary legends. That it remains readable today allows us to see the tactics, politics, and human decisions that shaped the ancient Near East in an era long before classical historians would rise to write their own accounts of empire and warfare; and it reminds us that long before Herodotus or Thucydides ever wrote a line, Egyptian scribes were chiseling into stone the earliest true military history.
At the Appalachian Post, every history article is built on one standard: what can be proven through verifiable first-hand sources. We rely on original documents, eyewitness accounts, military records, government archives, and contemporary writings from the period being studied. We do not rely on legend, hearsay, or modern reinterpretations unless clearly identified as secondary commentary. Our goal is to present the past as it actually appears in the surviving evidence: clearly, accurately, and without speculative narrative, so readers can engage history based on authentic documentation rather than modern assumptions.
Primary First-Hand Sources
• THE TEMPLE OF AMUN AT KARNAK
Original hieroglyphic inscription known as the Annals of Thutmose III, carved during the 18th Dynasty and attributed directly to royal scribes under the command of Thutmose III, providing the continuous eyewitness narrative of the Battle of Megiddo
• THE EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY (SUPREME COUNCIL OF ANTIQUITIES, EGYPT)
Custodial body responsible for the preservation, documentation, and photographic recording of the Karnak inscriptions that contain the Megiddo battle narrative
• THE EGYPTIAN MUSEUM IN CAIRO
Manuscript photographs, inscription plates, and facsimile casts of the Megiddo text, catalogued from original temple walls
• THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Epigraphic Survey copies, line drawings, and verified hieroglyphic reconstructions of the Karnak reliefs preserving Thutmose III’s campaign records
• THE BRITISH MUSEUM
Direct casts and early reproduction plates of the Annals of Thutmose III as preserved through 19th and early-20th century epigraphic expeditions
Secondary Attribution-Based Sources
• The University of Cambridge – Department of Egyptology
Chronological studies confirming the accepted dating of Thutmose III’s Year 23 campaign and the reconstruction of the 1469 BCE timeline
• The University of Chicago – Egyptological Research Publications
Scholarly analyses of Thutmose III’s military strategy, the Aruna pass decision, and the geopolitical landscape of Late Bronze Age Canaan
• The Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Academic discussions on the coalition led by the king of Kadesh, strategic value of Megiddo, and military logistics in the 18th Dynasty
• The American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE)
Contextual studies describing Canaanite vassalage, tribute systems, and the aftermath of the siege following the battle
• The Metropolitan Museum of Art – Egyptian Collections
Artifact documentation for military equipment, chariot models, and weapon types depicted in 18th Dynasty inscriptions, used only for contextual identification
Appalachian Post 
Leave a comment