(2nd. ed. Algora, 2007. An earlier edition was published in New York in 2000)
Ramessides, Medes and Persians completes Ages in Alignment. Here we find that the mighty Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt belongs in the sixth century BC, and that it came to a close with the Persian Invasion. A detailed examination of the hieroglyphic sources from the period show that Amenmesis, one of the final Nineteenth Dynasty pharaohs, was none other than Amasis, whose reign marked the end of Egyptian independence. A later ruler of that period, Seti II (Ineru-emtawnebu), is revealed to be identical to Inaros, the Egyptian patriot who battled against the Persian kings Xerxes and Artaxerxes I, and eventually suffered impalement at the insistence of Artaxerxes’ mother Amestris.
Ramessides, Medes and Persians also looks in detail at the question of Mesopotamian chronology, and shows how the later Neo-Assyrian kings, beginning with Tiglath-Pileser III, are identical to the Persian Great Kings. Thus Tiglath-Pileser III is an alter-ego of Cyrus the Great, whilst Sargon II is the same person as Darius Hystaspes and Sennacherib is Xerxes. The Egyptian king Sethos, who, according to Herodotus, battled against Sennacherib, is therefore one and the same as Seti II of the late Nineteenth Dynasty.
Ramessides, Medes and Persians fully supports the conclusions reached by Velikovsky in Peoples of the Sea, the last volume of his Ages in Chaos series, and brings forward much new evidence in support of these. It is shown, for example, that the so-called Libyan (Twenty-Second) Dynasty, whose rulers were typically named Osorkon and Sosenk, were a line of client rulers installed in power by the Persians, and how these people “reigned” alongside the Twenty-First Dynasty of priest-kings. Both these dynasties are shown to have arisen before the Twentieth Dynasty and are rightly to be placed between the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties. The so-called Peoples of the Sea, against whom Ramses III of the Twentieth Dynasty gained his famous victory, are revealed, just as Velikovsky argued, to be Greek mercenaries in the pay of the Great King; whilst the Pereset, with their sophisticated body armour and “feathered crowns,” are shown to be regular troops of the Persian monarch.