d
empire when its founder having passed away, and the conquered people
not having yet become accustomed to a subject condition, they are called
upon to submit to a successor of whom they know little or nothing. It
is always problematical whether the new sovereign will display as great
activity and be as successful as the old one; whether he will be capable
of turning to good account the armies which his predecessor commanded
with such skill, and led so bravely against the enemy; whether, again,
he will have sufficient tact to estimate correctly the burden of
taxation which each province is capable of bearing, and to lighten it
when there is a risk of its becoming too heavy. If he does not show from
the first that it is his purpose to maintain his patrimony intact at all
costs, or if his officers, no longer controlled by a strong hand, betray
any indecision in command, his subjects will become unruly, and the
change of monarch will soon furnish a pretext for widespread rebellion.
The beginning of the reign of Amenothes II. was marked by a revolt of
the Libyans inhabiting the Theban Oasis, but this rising was soon
put down by that Amenemhabi who had so distinguished himself under
Thutmosis.* Soon after, fresh troubles broke out in different parts of
Syria, in Galilee, in the country of the Amurru, and among the peoples
of Naharaim. The king's prompt action, however, prevented their
resulting in a general war.** He marched in person against the
malcontents, reduced the town of Shamshiaduma, fell upon the Lamnaniu,
and attacked their chief, slaying him with his own hand, and carrying
off numbers of captives.

* Brugsch and Wiedemann place this expedition at the time
when Amenothes IL was either hereditary prince or associated
with his father the inscription of Amenemhabi places it
explicitly after the death of Thutmosis III., and this
evidence outweighs every other consideration until further
discoveries are made.

** The campaigns of Amenothes II. were related on a granite
stele, which was placed against the second of the southern
pylons at Karnak. The date of this monument is almost
certainly the year II.; there is strong evidence in favour
of this, if it is compared with the inscription of Amada,
where Amenothes II. relates that in the year III. he
sacrificed the prisoners whom he had taken in the country of
Tikhisa.

[Illustration: 044.jpg AMENOT