Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well, need I really say more about him? We all know his as the man who changed Egypt forever--the man who tried in vain to convert the country from polytheism *belief in many different gods* to monotheism *the belief in one god--the Aten*. We also know his as the father of Tutankhamun, and the husband of the legendary Nefertiti... but on a serious note? Was he really as bad as he's portrayed? Discuss this issue here

He actually didn't leave that much of a mark on the country- he completely screwed it up while he was king, but as soon as he was gone his successors put everything back in order and the land, the culture, and the economy were restored.

A lot of people make the mistake of believing that what Akhenaten was pushing was a monotheism, however- it was believed by egyptologists at one point that this is what he did (and really, it's an easy mistake to make), but most of the ones I've spoken to today say that's actually not quite accurate. If you read Akhenaten's hymns (which are quite lovely, btw), he refers to his god in ways such as "Ra-Heru-akhety in His Name of Shu Who is in Aten." There are way too many god names there for a monotheism. This way of viewing the gods in terms of one another was actually not all that uncommon for the times- certain gods were popularly associated with one another, or even blended together. A more accurate term would be henotheism, or monolatry- focusing on one god, while still acknowledging the rest of the pantheon- and that sort of approach toward a deity was fairly characteristic of Egyptian worship. It wasn't until pretty late in his rule that he became so fanatical that he started vandalizing other gods' monuments, and their names in people's tombs.

Akhenaten's real heresy, was to insist that he was the only one who could worship the gods. In theory, the king was the only person who was fit to be a priest- and all other priests were considered stand-ins for the king in the event that he was not immediately present. But the common folk and the nobility, and of course the priests, did of course pray and worship on their own terms. Akhenaten tried to take even this sort of access away from people- and insisted that they all worship him instead, and leave the veneration of the Atn up to him alone.

The really unfortunate thing about Akhenaten's reign, for Egypt, was when he started closing down the nation's temples. The temples were not simply the residence of the gods on earth- not just the place where they were worshiped and entertained. The temples were also the economic hub of a community, and it usually happened that a temple would be built first and a community would build up around it. The temples would take in tribute from the lands around them of all things- grain, fruits, vegetables, livestock, and crafts of all sort were paid to the temple. These items in turn were offered to the gods and then used to pay craftspeople for their services in building and maintaining the temple facilities. So everything that went into the temple came back out to the community- constantly flushing wealth and resources into the local economy. Hospitals were also housed in the temple courtyards, and people who were injured on the job could report to these hospitals and receive healthcare- free of charge- until they were able to resume their work. The temple, after all, needed these people to be healthy and productive as the local economy relied on everyone contributing their share to the temple funds. It was the first worker's comp program, heh, and seems to have worked a hell of a lot better than what we have today. The temple courtyard was also host to the local merchants, who would gather in the outter yards to hawk their wares- much as is still done in the tourist trade today, btw. Scribes were also located there, ready to write a letter to a loved one, record a contract, or read a letter which was sent.

When Akhenaten closed down these temples, not only were hundreds of priests put out of a job, but he cut the heart out of each city's economy and in the vast majority of cases replaced it with nothing. People starved, became destitute- it was a horrible time. And there was, of course, the religious persecution. Akhenaten made a pretty poor king.

However, to be fair he was never supposed to be a king, and he had no training for it. His elder brother was the crown prince, but was killed by surprise on a military campaign. Akhenaten, who had been sent to a temple (which our local museum curator says was already known for it's unique ideas on theology), was suddenly called away from his duties there and shoved onto the throne. Without any preparation, is it any surprise that as a king he still behaved like a temple priest? He did what he knew how to do, and he was good at being a priest. It's just that, while such fanatical devotion to one's deity is a good thing when one is appointed to one temple in the service of a small selection of deities... it's not so great when you're in charge of the whole kingdom and are supposed to be the lynchpin connecting the people with all the gods and looking out for the country's general good. sweatdrop

Personally, I almost feel sorry for Akhenaten- he should never have been taken away from his temple. He should never have had to take up the kingship, and what happened due to his brother's death was grievously unfortunate for the entire country. But they did fix things up pretty quickly after his death.

I think that may be a bit of a controversial point, but I'm not up on their family tree enough to know for sure. The royal family lines tended to be almost as mixed up as those of the gods they served- sons and mothers could be officially "married," even though it was an entirely political (and platonic) relationship. I've heard both that he was a son of Ankhenaten, and that he may also have been his brother. But who knows? Maybe he was both.^_^'