WI:The Sea Peoples had conqured Egypt

The Sea People joined with the Libyan tribes creating a strong force of some 16,000 men.

As they began to enter Egypt, the warriors were usually accompanied by their wives and families, and it appears that they carried their possessions in ox-drawn cards, prepared to settle down though whatever territory they transverse. After organizing themselves with the Libyans, they began to penetrate the western Delta, and were moving southwards towards Memphis and Heliopolis.

This first attack of the Sea people occurred during the 5th regnal year of Merenptah, the 19th Dynasty ruler and son of Ramesses II, and it seems that at first it took that king by surprise. Of course, Merenptah could not allow the Sea People to advance on Egypt's most sacred cities, and it seems that he put an end to this in a six hour battle by killing more than six thousand of them and routing the rest. Those Sea People who were captured appear to have been settled in military colonies located in the Delta, where their descendants would become an increasingly important political factor over time. Moshe Dothan's excavations at the Philistine city of Ashdod between 1962 and 1969, which uncovered a burnt layer dating to the 13th century BC, may correspond to this event, or to the arrival of the Peleset themselves in the area. Merenptah's victory was recorded on the walls of the temple of Amun at Karnak and on the document we often refer to as the Israel Stele from his funerary temple.

However, the Sea People's alliance appears to have remained strong, for afterwards they destroyed the Hittite empire, ransacking the capital of Hattusas, and were probably responsible for the sacking of the client city of Ugarit on the Syrian coast, as well as cities such as Alalakh in northern Syria. Cyprus had also been overwhelmed and its capital Enkomi ransacked. It was clear that their ultimate goal was Egypt.

In the 8th regnal year of Ramesses III, they again returned to attack Egypt, by both land and sea. Ramesses III records that:

"The foreign countries made a plot in their islands. Dislodged and scattered by battle were the lands all at one time, and no land could stand before their arms, beginning with Khatti [1], Kode [2], Carchemish [3], Arzawa [4], and Alasiya [5]... A camp was set up in one place in Amor [6], and they desolated its people and its land as though they had never come into being. They came, the flame prepared before them, onwards to Egypt. Their confederacy consisted of Peleset, Tjekker, Sheklesh, Danu, and Weshesh, united lands, and they laid their hands upon the lands to the entire circuit of the earth, their hearts bent and trustful 'Our plan is accomplished!' But the heart of this god, the lord of the gods, was prepared and ready to ensnare them like birds... I established my boundary in Djahi [7], prepared in front of them, the local princes, garrison-commanders, and Maryannu. I caused to be prepared the rivermouth like a strong wall with warships, galleys, and skiffs. They were completely equipped both fore and aft with brave fighters carrying their weapons and infantry of all the pick of Egypt, being like roaring lions upon the mountains; chariotry with able warriors and all goodly officers whose hands were competent. Their horses quivered in all their limbs, prepared to crush the foreign countries under their hoofs. "

Again, Egypt seems to have been ready for this onslaught, for they have positioned troops at Djahy in southern Palestine and fortified the mouths of the Nile branches in the Delta. The clash, when it came was a complete success for the Egyptians. The Sea Peoples, on land, were defeated and scattered but their navy continued towards the eastern Nile delta. Their aim now, was to defeat the Egyptian navy and force an entry up the river. Although the Egyptians had a reputation as poor seamen they fought with the tenacity of those defending their homes. Ramesses had lined the shores with ranks of archers who kept up continuous volleys of arrows into the enemy ships when they attempted to land. Then the Egyptian navy attacked using grappling hooks to haul in the enemy ships. In the brutal hand to hand fighting which ensued the Sea People are utterly defeated. Ramesses III recorded his victory in stone on the outer walls of his mortuary temple at Medinet Habu and the author of the Harris papyrus included the accounts of these campaigns as well



How would the Sea peoples rule Egypt? If conqured would they have turned their backs on the Libyans and take them to? How long would they dominate the Medeterranien and what would happen to the Egyptian Natives? Please Discuss
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
I never really understood this part of history, partly because I never really understood the term 'Hyskos', partly because of Velikovsky and partly because everything seems to shift in terms of what is believed from decade to decade and school of thought to school of thought, so I don't know what the 'accepted' version of the moment is ?!! I remember at one time some of the pharoahs were supposed to be have been these Sea People anyway, and was a Hyskos a sea person or what ?

Grey Wolf
in ignorance
 
Historical Tangle

The Hyskos were a semitic people who invaded The Upper Nile and held it for about 200 years.
Many Scholars attribute the Biblical story of Joseph to this period as its stated that he became Second in the land in power only to Pharaoh an impossiability under a true Egyptian ruler .
As the Hebrews and Hyskos were both Semites its a good guess that Joseph was promoted by a Pharaoh who was an invader .
This also explains why the Hebrews were later enslaved by the Egyptians, as they had settled in the delta at the invitation of the Hyskos who were then defeated and driven from Egypt.

The Sea peoples were of early Greek stock who moved down the coast with Egypt as their goal and after being repulsed , settled in five fortified cities along the coast of Palestine becoming the Philliestines of the Bible or Phoenicians of later history.

Since Palestine was under Egyptian control during times of National strength it might seem as though the Hebrews were placed there as a sort of buffer state between the Philliestines and the Egyptian frontier.
Constant war with the armies of Isreal sapped the manpower of the Phillistines until King David was finaly able to overpower them early in his reign.

The Phoenicians were the old worlds greatest traders and merchants and had their ancestors conqured Egypt they might have become landbound Pharaohs slowly adopting Egyptian ways and much of the trade and exploration of Ancient times would be lost .
No Carthage would be founded and no Punic wars to build Rome's national reputation.

Without the Phillistine Cities the Hebrews would have had no strong enemy and no reason to choose a King , No Saul, No David, No Solomon to build his Temple in Jeresulem.. or with the resources of Egypt the Sea peoples might have Dominated all of Palestine and driven the Hebrews from their land.
 
GillBill said:
The Hyskos were a semitic people who invaded The Upper Nile and held it for about 200 years.
Many Scholars attribute the Biblical story of Joseph to this period as its stated that he became Second in the land in power only to Pharaoh an impossiability under a true Egyptian ruler .
As the Hebrews and Hyskos were both Semites its a good guess that Joseph was promoted by a Pharaoh who was an invader .
This also explains why the Hebrews were later enslaved by the Egyptians, as they had settled in the delta at the invitation of the Hyskos who were then defeated and driven from Egypt.

It is also interesting to note that one of the Hyksos kings was named Jacob-Yer. Jacob, as we know from the Biblical narrative, was Joseph's father. Possibly this Jacob-Yer and the Biblical Jacob are the same person or somehow otherwise related (although there is no way of knowing that for sure).

GillBill said:
The Sea peoples were of early Greek stock who moved down the coast with Egypt as their goal and after being repulsed , settled in five fortified cities along the coast of Palestine becoming the Philliestines of the Bible or Phoenicians of later history.

Actually, this is not completely true. The Phoenicians were a Semitic people, descendants of the Canaanites who had inhabited Lebanon, Syria and Palestine for almost 2,000 years by the time of the Sea Peoples invasions. The Sea Peoples were a separate group, and some of them, anyway, did settle on the coast of Palestine. The Peleset became the Philistines, the Tjekker settled around Mount Dor, and the Denyen (Danaoi?) may have settled in northern Palestine, where they became intermingled with the Hebrews to form the Tribe of Dan (this may be the source of the special enmity between the Philistines and the Danites...). We don't know the fates of the others (Lukka, Shekelesh, Sherden), but they were probably pretty well destroyed in the wars with Rameses III and merged with the other surviving tribes.

Some of the Sea Peoples definitely seem to have Greek roots, but not all. The Sherden (Shardana) seem to have come from Sardinia (where horned helmets and swords almost identical to the ones depicted on the Egyptian reliefs have been found). The Shekelesh seem to have come from Sicily. The Peleset themselves seem to have come from Crete, and may be descendants of the old Minoan peoples of Crete. The Phaistos Disk, found in Crete, depicts men wearing the odd sort of feathered helmets which are traditionally associated with the Peleset. Other tribes seem to have come from Lycia, Caria, and other regions in Asia Minor (the Lukka, Tjekker, Denyen and others) and were probably Luwians (a people related to the Hittites who occupied most of Anatolia), although the Denyen may have been the Greek Danaoi. The Akaiwasha (sp?) are often identified with the Achaeans, and may represent refugees from the fall of the Mycenaean palace civilization in Greece proper.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Fascinating Robert !!!

Wasn't the Phaistos disc from Cyprus ???

I'm intrigued by the Sardinian and Sicilian connections. What date are we talking here ? What race are these peoples - Etruscan offshoots ? Are these the unnamed Bronze Age peoples we read about all over Europe but never really get a sense of the political organisation of ?

Grey Wolf
 
In one of the Old Testament books, God says that, "Have not I not brought the Philistines from Caphtor?" "Caphtor" (I think that's what it was) is an old name for Crete.

Perhaps the Sea Peoples were Cretans fleeing Thera and Mycenanean attacks to set up homes on someone else's lands?
 
Grey Wolf said:
Fascinating Robert !!!

Wasn't the Phaistos disc from Cyprus ???

I'm intrigued by the Sardinian and Sicilian connections. What date are we talking here ? What race are these peoples - Etruscan offshoots ? Are these the unnamed Bronze Age peoples we read about all over Europe but never really get a sense of the political organisation of ?

Grey Wolf

The Phaistos Disk was found in 1908 at the Cretan site of Phaistos on the southern coast of the island.

The great migration of these peoples took place c. 1200 BC. The Sherden and Shekelesh were probably not Etruscan offshoots, but the native peoples of Sardinia and Sicily. The Mycenaeans and Minoans are known to have traded in the area, which may be what attracted them to the eastern Mediterranean when the great disaster which forced the great migrations...whatever it was...occurred.

Matt Quinn said:
Perhaps the Sea Peoples were Cretans fleeing Thera and Mycenanean attacks to set up homes on someone else's lands?

The problem with that is that the Thera eruption has been recently proven to date to c. 1650 BC...about 450 years before the migrations of the Sea Peoples began. And in 1200 BC, the Mycenaeans themselves were fleeing their homelands as the palace civilization collapsed and the incoming Dorians took over. As mentioned earlier, the Akaiwasha were quite possibly Mycenaeans themselves.

We really don't know what caused the migrations. There is some evidence of climatic changes which may have forced the migrations. But it seems that most likely various Indo-European tribes (the Dorian Greeks and the ancestors of the Celts, Italians, and Germans of later history) moved into the Europe at this time, displacing native peoples, who migrated south, displacing other peoples. The peoples on the fringes, having nowhere else to go, took to the seas and became the Sea Peoples.
 
Leo euler said:
If they had conquered Egypt, then the country would have been renamed Seapeopleland.

Well, it wasn't renamed Hyksosland, and they definitely conquered it. Given the absorbing power of Egyptian civilisation, I would expect something more like what happened to the Hyksos, the Libyans and the Nubians - after a few decades the Sea Peoples Kings will be called something like Beloved-of-Amun, King of the Two Lands Amenophis XYZ, Living Hor etc. etc. and start talking of upholding Ma'at and defending the kingdom against barbarians.

Look at what happened to that paragon of nomadic simplicity and self-discipline, Kubla Khan.
 
carlton_bach said:
Well, it wasn't renamed Hyksosland, and they definitely conquered it. Given the absorbing power of Egyptian civilisation, I would expect something more like what happened to the Hyksos, the Libyans and the Nubians - after a few decades the Sea Peoples Kings will be called something like Beloved-of-Amun, King of the Two Lands Amenophis XYZ, Living Hor etc. etc. and start talking of upholding Ma'at and defending the kingdom against barbarians.

Look at what happened to that paragon of nomadic simplicity and self-discipline, Kubla Khan.

I agree. Likely they would have imposed themselves as a ruling class, and given time, would have absorbed Egyptian culture (as indeed they seem to have adopted the dominant Canaanite culture of Palestine when they settled there).
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
robertp6165 said:
Some of the Sea Peoples definitely seem to have Greek roots, but not all. The Sherden (Shardana) seem to have come from Sardinia (where horned helmets and swords almost identical to the ones depicted on the Egyptian reliefs have been found).
You can add to this examples of Nuraghic architecture recently found in the Levant (the Nuraghi are beehive houses that were characteristic of architecture in Sardinia and nowhere else - until now).
 
Ahh, the Incursion of the Sea Peoples. Confusing, but action packed and exciting. To the best of my understanding, all of those migrations were trigerred by a southward movement of Indo-European peoples, originally from what is now the Ukraine and Central Asia. As they moved south, into Greece and Asia Minor, they either subjugated or pushed out the original inhabitants. In Greece, many, many tribes, both of Indo-European and Pelasgian (original inhabitants of Greece, hell, Phillistine might just be another way of saying Pelasgian) took to the sea. They were joined by very many other tribes, and, acting in cooperation (which I find incredible) they sailed south and caused all sorts of trouble. Then, repulsed by the Egyptians, they landed in Canaan, at the same time the Hebrews were moving in. The result was a confusing mess of violence and religious fanaticism. It would not be the last. Oh, and to the best of my understanding, the Hyksos came earlier than the Sea Peoples by about 200 years, or so. Or 300, was it? Or was if 400? Anyway, the Hyksos (hyksos=shepherd kings) were nomads, either of Afro-Asiatic or Indo-European origin, who invaded Egypt after invading Canaan, which happened to be in the way. IMO, they were probably Indo-European.
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Romulus Augustulus said:
Oh, and to the best of my understanding, the Hyksos came earlier than the Sea Peoples by about 200 years, or so. Or 300, was it? Or was if 400? Anyway, the Hyksos (hyksos=shepherd kings) were nomads, either of Afro-Asiatic or Indo-European origin, who invaded Egypt after invading Canaan, which happened to be in the way. IMO, they were probably Indo-European.
In all likelyhood, it was 400 years after the Thebans reclaimed the Delta region and drove the Hyksos out. Their names are fairly clearly some variant of Northwest Semitic (which in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean that they are Semites), and the Thebans eventually pursued them into that region of the world, so I think it's probable that they originated in Syria-Palestine - even though there was some bizarre fusion going on with Minoan culture.

They ruled Egypt during what we call the Second Intermediate Period of Egyptian History. When the Thebans drive them out, the New Kingdom begins. Grimal suggests that the Egyptian empire founded by the Tuthmosids was a consequence of the Hyksos invasion and the pursuit into Retenu (aka Syria).

Incidentally, I'd steer clear of that etymology. Manetho says that "Hyksos" means "shepherd king" but it appears to be a false etymology; most scholars of Middle Egyptian suggest that Hyksos actually means "chief of foreign lands," in Egyptian h.ek.aw-khasut. The title is applied to both Nubians and Asiatics, but these particular chiefs appear to have been Asiatic rather than Nubian, for obvious reasons.
 
Hmm...Of course, they might have just been an ethnic compound, so to speak. Even if they did have IE ancestors, the early Indo-Europeans had no hesitations about screwing the hell out of the locals.
 
It is also interesting to note that one of the Hyksos kings was named Jacob-Yer. Jacob, as we know from the Biblical narrative, was Joseph's father. Possibly this Jacob-Yer and the Biblical Jacob are the same person or somehow otherwise related (although there is no way of knowing that for sure).

Yes its interesting that scholars have long puzzled over the fact that no mention of the Hebrew Joesph or the 400 year sojourn of the Isrealites is mentioned in Egyptian records which could be accounted for if the Biblical stories took place during the Hyskos period .
A 400 year stay is problematic as most old testament dating was generational, 400 years being subtituted in the oral narritives as a very long time IE several generations.
The appearance of the Sea peoples and the Hebrew Exodus happend pretty close to the same time since Merenptah is usually considered the be the Pharaoh of the Moses epic.
The Sea Peoples were repulsed from Egypt, while the Hebrews took advantage of the distraction to also make a quick exit and wandered as Nomads for a generation.
When Josua and company finally Reached the Jordan the Phillistines were Building their five fortified cities along the costal plains.

if the Sea peoples were actualy Mycenanean,Cretan,Achaeans..ect then these were the same peoples who a few hundred years before had fought the Trojan war?
 
What I would find Interesting is that, If the Sea Peoples are able to sustain the conquerings from Asia Minor to Egypt, and crush the many uprsings in The Fertile Crescent...Would the Medeterranien powers be plunged into the dark Ages and see an rebirth like the greeks? How would the Sea peoples handle the coming Assyrian Onuslaught.
 
GillBill said:
Yes its interesting that scholars have long puzzled over the fact that no mention of the Hebrew Joseph or the 400 year sojourn of the Isrealites is mentioned in Egyptian records which could be accounted for if the Biblical stories took place during the Hyskos period.

There is definitely no way to be sure that the Hebrews came to Egypt during the Hyksos period, or that they were enslaved for 400 years. But this would be the most likely time period for this to have happened.

The fact that one finds no record of a "Joseph" in the Egyptian records, or of the enslavement of the Hebrews, is not really all that significant. One has to remember that the records we have for the Hyksos period are sparse, and those we do have often amount more to propaganda than they do to history, as the Pharaohs generally made a practice of claiming all credit for themselves and not mentioning contributions by officials serving under them. Usually, the only way we know of an important official's contributions is if we happen to find that official's own tomb, where the inscriptions "blow his own horn" instead of that of the Pharaoh. So unless we find Joseph's tomb...assuming that such existed, which it may not since Joseph was not Egyptian and probably didn't partake of the Egyptian funerary rites...we probably won't find mention of him in the Egyptian records. And as for the enslavement of the Hebrews, there is no particular reason why this would have been noted in the Egyptian records at all. The Egyptians would have considered this a minor matter, hardly worth mentioning. As someone (Carl Sagan, I believe) once said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

GillBill said:
The appearance of the Sea peoples and the Hebrew Exodus happend pretty close to the same time since Merenptah is usually considered the be the Pharaoh of the Moses epic.

Actually, Rameses II (reigned c. 1279-1212 BC) is usually considered to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. It was he who built the store cities of Ramses and Pithom where the Hebrews were said to have worked as slaves. The major Sea Peoples invasions occurred during the reigns of Meneptah (c. 1212-1204 BC) and Rameses III (c. 1198-1161 BC).

GillBill said:
The Sea Peoples were repulsed from Egypt, while the Hebrews took advantage of the distraction to also make a quick exit and wandered as nomads for a generation. When Joshua and company finally reached the Jordan the Phillistines were building their five fortified cities along the coastal plains.

If we assume that the Exodus took place in the final years of the reign of Rameses II...say about 1220-1215 BC...and the Hebrews wandered in the wilderness for 40 years before arriving in Palestine, then they would have been arriving about 1180-1175 BC. The final defeat of the Sea Peoples by Rameses III took place c. 1190 BC, and the Peleset, Tjekker, and Denyen settled in Palestine probably shortly thereafter. So the Philistines would have been there for about 15 years when the Hebrews arrived.

Of course, there is some evidence that some Sea People may have been living in the coastal cities of Palestine as early as the reign of Rameses II. Rameses II used them as mercenaries in his armies, especially the Sherden, and most likely would have placed garrisons of them in Palestine.

GillBill said:
if the Sea peoples were actually Mycenanean,Cretan,Achaeans..ect then these were the same peoples who a few hundred years before had fought the Trojan war?

There is some disagreement about the dating of the Trojan War. There are two possibilities as to which Troy was the Homeric Troy...Troy VI (destroyed c. 1260 BC, some say by earthquake, others by warfare) or Troy VII (destroyed by invaders c. 1180 BC). I personally tend to side with those who argue in favor of Troy VI. I remember reading a book some time ago (called IN SEARCH OF TROY I believe) which argued persuasively that Troy VI was the Homeric Troy based on the construction of the walls and the plan of the town, which closely fits the Homeric description of it, and provided arguments which showed that the supposed "earthquake" damage could just as easily have resulted from an intentional burning and razing of the town. If that is the case, then the Trojan War happened c. 1260 BC, just before the final collapse of the Mycenaean palace civilization in Greece, and represents a "last gasp" of Mycenaean power before the final downfall of the civilization. And if Troy VI was the Homeric Troy, then Troy VII, which was altogether a more crudely constructed place and not at all like the "Golden Troy" described by Homer, was more than likely destroyed by the Sea Peoples, who were arriving in the region precisely at that time (c. 1180 BC). This chronology makes a lot more sense than the one proposed by those who champion Troy VII as the Homeric Troy, as by 1180 BC, the Mycenaean cities were themselves under attack, and it is extremely unlikely that they would have been able to mount any sort of a major expedition to Troy.

So, the answer to your question is...yes, the Akaiwasha et al were probably the same peoples who fought the Trojan War, but had done so a few decades before, not a few hundred years before.
 
Historico said:
What I would find Interesting is that, If the Sea Peoples are able to sustain the conquerings from Asia Minor to Egypt, and crush the many uprsings in The Fertile Crescent...

There's really no way that would have happened. The Sea Peoples were simply not powerful enough to hold onto all of the eastern Mediterranean simultaneously. They basically went from one country to another, not trying to hold onto their conquests. And other peoples...the peoples who originally instigated the Sea People's migrations by displacing them from their homelands...were following close behind in many cases. The Dorians occupied Greece, the Phrygians occupied Anatolia.

Historico said:
Would the Medeterranien powers be plunged into the dark Ages and see an rebirth like the greeks?

This is basically what happened in OTL.

Historico said:
How would the Sea peoples handle the coming Assyrian Onslaught.

Assuming that they managed to establish themselves permanently in Egypt, and maintain themselves in power until c. 700 BC when the Assyrians invade, they would most likely have become thoroughly Egyptianized by the time the Assyrians invaded. So probably not much different than OTL.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
This is really quite fascinating ! I'd be impressed at one of you writing an essay to make sense of it all :) I'd unfortunately not be able to pay for it ! But could host it at IF if anyone wanted

Grey Wolf
 
Top