Talk:Thutmose III

message: There seems to be something of a consensus that Thutmose III was a very good leader in all aspects, not just in his military efforts. Should we mention this in the articile?
sorry if this is the wrong place for this... i can't quite figure out where the right place to mention it would be... in the intro to the article it mentions that thutmose hated hatshpesut for usurping his power, or something to that effect. just to put it simply, this is an idea that has been very thoroughly discredited and shouldn't be in the article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.120.149 (talk) 09:49, 2006 March 29 (UTC)
:Good catch. The article itself suggests this isn't true, so I've removed it from the lead (the introduction). Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great leader 

message: The two dates for Thutmose's rule now don't match. The first par says 1479, which Anglius corrected to, and that has been reverted to 1458. It's all very well blanket reverting those you think are trolls, Dave, but maybe you could check that your reversion is actually an improvement. 
Grace Note 01:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: - Is possible that Tuthmose III may identify with Miphramuchthosis of Graeco-Egyptian historian Manetho?
- Is possible that Hatsepsut may identify with Miphris or Misaphris of Graeco-Egyptian historian Manetho?
--IonnKorr 22:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manetho and Tuthmose III 

message: I've straightened out the formatting of the page, not perfectly, however the right alignment of the picture of the statue was shoving all the text past the pharaohbox.
Furthermore, the into paragraph is a little long for an article, especially considering the length of all the rest. So this could use some reformatting across the board. Thanatosimii 03:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but really, so what? I am not sure what the point of this argument is about. This is an article about Thutmose III, not Ramssess II, and each have their own article. Keep in mind that Ramessess II lived much longer than Thutmose III did and thereby had much more time to construct monuments, have more wives, and to "grow tall". ;-)  But still, so what? This is all just useless bickering about what constitutes "greatness" but unless you contribute something to either article that is substantive and that can be backed up with citations from recognized experts this discussion doesn't really lead anywhere useful. Captmondo 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say that Ramesses was was probably the most important egyptian ever to have lived? Apparently, he carved his name on other people's statues and temples and such. He was called "the great" because when egyptologists first found all these statues and temples and such, with scenes of him winning the Battle of Kadesh, they thought that he was a really great pharaoh. Later, they discovered that (a) he had an interesting habit of usurping other peoples statues and temples, and (b) he didn't win at Kadesh. So in actual fact, Thutmose III probably trumps Ramesses II, even though he was only 5 foot tall. ~The Little Green Man from Mars(My Page)(Where do I live?) 01:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: How did Thutmose die? -unsigned
We don't know. We just know when he died, which is actually a piece of information we don't have for most pharaohs Thanatosimii 16:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did Thutmose die 

message: I am not aware that Thutmose III was mentioned in the Amarna Letters. As far as I know the Amarna Letters only mention Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV and Tutankhamun. I was wondering if anyone could provide a reference to that claim. --JLCA 18:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The amarna letters are to Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, Semenkhkare, and Tutankhamun. In them, however, references are made to several other kings. Thanatosimii 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amarna Letters 

message: "Thutmose III was a great builder pharaoh" - this in not entirely correct so i think it would be better to call him a worrior pharaoh. He built many temples but this is unimportant in comparison with his great military activity. (preceeding unsigned comment left by Harioris
:Builder pharaoh and Warrior pharaoh are not in contradiction with one another. His military skill is already extolled in the huge section on his wars, where it does say he is regarded as the best warrior pharaoh. However, the fact that he comes in second to Ramses II when it comes to building does not mean he was not a great builder pharaoh. 
Thanatosimii 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amenhotep III's constructions were indeed very large and numerous, and seti's were indeed great in quality, however in quantity it becomes hard to beat Thutmose III. Most of his temples are now destroyed, however this by no means means that he was not in his time a great builder pharaoh. Quality is subjective. Quantity is not subjective, and the quantity of Thutmose was indeed high enough to call him a great builder pharaoh. But all this beside – published sources call him a great builder pharaoh and consistantly extoll his construction works, so I do not see a problem keeping that phrase in there. It doesn't mean he was the best, and it doesn't mean that was his greatest trait, it just means he was very good, and indeed his works clearly outshadow those of Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Amenhotep II, and Thutmose IV all put together. I don't see the problem with calling him a great builder.Thanatosimii 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you sure we're looking at the same monuments? Ther're not exactly very small, they've just been mostly destroyed by later constructors or removed. A great builder is simply one whose building programs are active; it can have nothing to do with the quality, because that's subjective. And really, Egyptologists say regularly that he was a great builder, so that really appears to be the only big criterion. Thanatosimii 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Grimal goes on for two pages listing his construction at karnak alone, the Oxford encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt attributes fifty temples to him. Gardiner speaks similarly about the size of his efforts at Karnak. However, his stuff has now been mostly torn down. If the temple of Luxor had been torn down and rebuilt by the Ptolemies as well, by your criterion, he wouldn't have been a great builder either. Now, the only reason that the phrase "great builder" should be removed is if your claim that he was "Not interested in building" holds up, and I quite think that the mere mass of text dedicated to his construction efforts here makes such a claim tenuous... Thanatosimii 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Builder pharaoh

message: I think the reference to Hatshepsut's co-regency should be moved to the section below, "Dates and length of reign"; it seems to take over a section that is supposed to be about his relatives and family. Some further background on his family such as grandparents and/or successors is probably needed here to give more context to who the man was rather than just "son of Thutmose II and Aset". The mention in the possible marriages sentence and the bit at the bottom about Merytre-Hatshepsut are awkward as well; there is no context to the statements "was not actually Hatshepsut's daughter" etc. Some more explanation about why this would be/was thought in the first place could probably help (note her article is lacking in explanation as to why as well). -- Editor at Large • talk 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note too that this section seems to hold the mention that Merytre-Hatshepsut was not Hatshepsut's daughter in some doubt or at least makes whether is fact or not ambiguous, while the article states "[Merytre-Hatshepsut] is not related to Queen Hatshepsut". This isnt' directly referenced/cited and I'm not sure if it is a proven fact or has just been made certain through newly-found inscriptions or manuscripts. If it's fact we should state it as a fact, and if it is not the other article needs to be changed :) -- Editor at Large • talk 17:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Family" section 

message: It seems odd that there is no mention of Thutmose III as a likely basis for the Greek tales of conquests by the Pharaoh "Sesostris" (aka "Sesoosis", "Vesosis"). Although his name isn't similar, his achievements in foreign conquests are as close as any Egyptian pharaoh gets, and the timing of his reign is very close to that given by Herodotus (according to whom "Sesostris" was followed by a "Pheros", then by a "Proteus", who reigned during the Trojan war, and then by "Rhampsinitus", an obvious match for Rameses II).Mrcautious (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly can't find a source for that, whereas I can find a number of sources suggesting the name reflect the Pharaohs named Senwosret/Senusret. Our article on Sesostris needs references. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sesostris" candidate 

message: What weapons improvement?  Describe.
4.249.63.67 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  weapons improvement 

message: See article from Science Direct at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312002270
71.163.117.143 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  radiocarbon dating related to Thutmose III 

message: We need a section on Tuthmosis's III Discover, meaning the archaeological side of things, and the items found in his tomb alongside his sarcophagus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowlance34 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery  

message: I'm not sure these specific dates are really the "usual" dates since as far as I can see, only Beckerath bothers to calculate the dates at all. And although this article has said April 24 for years, Beckerath's book actually says April 28, so I've changed that. (Apparently this article has said April 24 since at least 2009, judging from the "On This Day" section at the top...)
Beckerath himself cites Neugebauer, who matched up Egyptian calendar dates with Julian calendar dates. So, Sirius rose in the sky on 3 Shemu 25, which in Thutmose's time corresponds to July 18. The start of Thutmose's reign is 1 Shemu 4, or 81 days before that. July 18 - 81 days = April 28. Using the same calculation for Thutmose's death on 3 Peret 30 should give us March 25 (115 days before July 18), not March 11. Since I'm not an Egyptologist, maybe I I misunderstood how this works...in any case, since Beckerath says March 11, and we're citing Beckerath here, I guess we have to say March 11 too.
But from my reading it seems that the 1479-1425 dates aren't completely set in stone - it's actually much harder to prove the years than it is to prove the month and days. So it just seems unnecessarily misleading to give these very specific dates for his reign. (But as I said, I'm no Egyptologist...) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 24 and March 11 

message: Hi, I am a Japanese Wikipedian of Ancient Egypt field and I think the first section is wrong.
Section "name" says ""Eternal are the manifestations of Ra, Born of Thoth"" but the word "xpr" is the singular form, not a plural form.
So that translation should be "Eternal is the manifestation of Ra". (Note:the infobox pharaoh says "Lasting" so it should be united)
Thank you. Yuuyuu0430 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the text against the two sources already used to support the name (Clayton 1994 and Leprohon 2013) and have resolved this problem. The two sources give different translations of the name, but it's true that they both kheper as singular rather than plural. I don't know where that plural translation came from. A. Parrot (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021