Why is King Tutankhamun a bad phoaroh?

Answer 1

because he fought no great battles, he did not bring riches to his people, and during his rule the previous ruler of his dynasty did most of his work. Additional: King Tut wasn't that bad of a ruler, in all honesty. He just wasn't an outstanding one in my opinion. I'm not sure what the above poster means by "the previous ruler of his dynasty did most of his work"; let me explain the previous Phaoroh, Akhenaten: Amenhotep IV, much like Diocletian centuries later in Rome, sought to do away with Egypt's polytheistic worship and focus on only one god as a ruler, a monotheistic worship, and naturally, the sun, originally personified as Ra, or Aten, as the center of worship. This makes sense in large part because of Egypt's totalitarianism and the Phaoroh's identification with the sun, the reincarnation of Ra/Horus. Additionally, the Egyptian pantheon is vast and complex, incredibly confusing to someone who knows nothing about it. Shifting to this monotheistic order would not only place an underlying importance on the Phaoroh as a totalitarian ruler, but would also settle some of the confusing elements of the religion. He then took the name Akhenaten. However, Akhenaten's reforms were incredibly radical and offended many of Egypt's high priests who absolutely disagreed (to give you a frame of reference, consider the outrage if Obama mandated Islam as the nation's religion). When Akhenaten died, he left behind a son, Tutenkhaten. Because "Tut" was at the time young and easily influenced, the high priests essentially persuaded him into undoing his father's reforms. The worship of "Aten" was done away with and "Amun-Ra" was restored. The Egyptian worship then shifted from monotheism back to its traditional, complex polytheism. Part of this undoing was Tutenkhamun changing his name to Tutenkhamun, "the living image of Amun". So was king Tut really such a bad Phaoroh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun