Sea Peoples Conquer Egypt

The Sea Peoples Migration was like a wave of destruction, leading to the downfall of the Hittites and ravaging of the Levant. The only major power to check their advance was Egypt.

Now what if they had not been able to defeat the Sea Peoples and they were conquered? Could they be conquered? What effect would this early conquest have? How long would it take the Egyptians to break free? How would their language and culture be affected?
 
Well it wouldn't be the first time a foreign power had taken control in Egypt. I imagine they could be some Sea People pharaohs.
 
I don't think they would conquer all of Egypt - I don't even think conquest was their outright goal; they were more the plundering type, and where they did settle it wasn't in particularly large numbers.

If they did manage to break the New Kingdom, you'd probably see an earlier Third Intermediate Period. Lower Egypt would be divided among several Sea People principalities/chiefdoms, all of which would probably adopt the Egyptian language and culture after a generation or two (the vast majority of their subjects would still be Egyptians, and the Sea Peoples appear to have integrated into the local cultures quite quickly when they settled the Levant).
An Egyptian state will likely survive in the south, either under a weak Pharaoh or under the priesthood of Amun-Ra.

The Sea Peoples in Lower Egypt will have a close relationship with the Libyan tribes that were also migrating into the region at this time - Libyans may come to form the bulk of the Sea People States' armies. In OTL the Libyans eventually established dynasties in Lower Egypt during the 3rd IP, so that pattern will likely continue and they may eventually supersede the Sea People dynasties entirely.

The Viceroy of Kush is another wildcard. In OTL, the Viceroy Panehsy attempted a coup against Ramesses XI (who reigned barely 50 years after Ramesses III - vanquisher of the Sea Peoples), so in a scenario where Sea Peoples have overrun the north and royal authority is weakened, something similar may take shape in the south...
 
Where exactly did the Sea Peoples originate from?

That's still a point of debate, but scholarly consensus and archaeological data tends to suggest they came from Italy (the peninsula + Sardinia and Sicily), Greece/the Aegean, and Western Anatolia. Their rampage through the eastern Mediterranean was roughly concurrent with migrations of new populations into those same regions.
 
I thought the Sea People were looking to settle Egypt en masse. Apparently the illustrations the Egyptians made of them show them with boats that contain women and children, indicating not just raiding but settlement of the Nile Valley. If that were their aim, Egypt might have a different demographic makeup if the invasions were successful.
 
That's still a point of debate, but scholarly consensus and archaeological data tends to suggest they came from Italy (the peninsula + Sardinia and Sicily), Greece/the Aegean, and Western Anatolia. Their rampage through the eastern Mediterranean was roughly concurrent with migrations of new populations into those same regions.

The "long migration" let me somewhat cautious : they were "Sea Peoples" regionally present before Ramseses III (during Ramses II's reign for instance), and inner european migrations can't explain all movements : Mycenian decline, for instance, isn't that well tied to these (Dorian Invasion being more of a conveinent explanation to fill gaps than really well proven).

Some were known as "settled" peoples, as Lycians (Lukkas) and the identification with places (Shakalusha with Sicily) doesn't sounds that definitive to me : it could be as well tied with other places (Skakalusha with Salawassa/Sagalassos in western Anatolia)

Eventually, I'm more convinced by a Adriatic/Agean/Anatolian origin than an Italic one, at least for what matter to the bulk of Sea Peoples. That said, as you mentioned, the debate is far from being closed.

BTW, what's your opinion on "1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed "? It just got translated there, so I bought it and it was definitely interesting and (that's the trick) more tied up to the question at hand : on non-migrating factors and focus on peoples such as Gasgas that aren't "usual suspects" when it come to the fall of Hittites as generally introduced.

But while it's interesting, when it come to having an holistic view of the eastern basin, it looks a bit "catastrophist" for me, as in focusing a bit too much on ecological factors (now, he's hardly the only one, and this precise point of view isn't bad in itself, but it's quite the historiographical trend now, and found among really diverse studies on other periods).
 
Reading about historical account of the city of Ugarit, I find it very hard to believe that the "Sea Peoples" were simply a migrating force of settlers.

Why burn a thriving trading city to the ground if your looking find land for woman and children?

No, I believe most signs point to the Mycean or Aegan origin, as they were war like and in close proximity
 
The "long migration" let me somewhat cautious : they were "Sea Peoples" regionally present before Ramseses III (during Ramses II's reign for instance), and inner european migrations can't explain all movements : Mycenian decline, for instance, isn't that well tied to these (Dorian Invasion being more of a conveinent explanation to fill gaps than really well proven).

Some were known as "settled" peoples, as Lycians (Lukkas) and the identification with places (Shakalusha with Sicily) doesn't sounds that definitive to me : it could be as well tied with other places (Skakalusha with Salawassa/Sagalassos in western Anatolia)

Eventually, I'm more convinced by a Adriatic/Agean/Anatolian origin than an Italic one, at least for what matter to the bulk of Sea Peoples. That said, as you mentioned, the debate is far from being closed.

Oh yes of course, the debate still rages on... The identification of the Shardana/Sherden with Sardinia (and the Nuragic civilization) seems quite solid to me, but the Shakalasha/Shekelesh and the Tursha/Turisha are a lot more mysterious - with only the possibility of ties to Italy (and good cases to be made for an Anatolian origin as well, as you pointed out). And of course many of the Sea People groups were mentioned well before their rise to infamy (the Lukka are mentioned as Hittite allies at the battle of Kadesh, which makes an identification with the Lycians quite likely, and "Aqawasha/Ekwesh" and "Denyen" could easily be Egyptian variants of "Achaean" and "Danaan" - and therefore indicate Greeks).

BTW, what's your opinion on "1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed "? It just got translated there, so I bought it and it was definitely interesting and (that's the trick) more tied up to the question at hand : on non-migrating factors and focus on peoples such as Gasgas that aren't "usual suspects" when it come to the fall of Hittites as generally introduced.

But while it's interesting, when it come to having an holistic view of the eastern basin, it looks a bit "catastrophist" for me, as in focusing a bit too much on ecological factors (now, he's hardly the only one, and this precise point of view isn't bad in itself, but it's quite the historiographical trend now, and found among really diverse studies on other periods).

I haven't read it myself :eek:
I'd bet, though, that ecological factors were quite an important force in "pushing" various groups around enough to trigger the Sea Peoples' rampaging. Though all in all it was likely part of a larger puzzle - the Sea Peoples were quite innovative when it came to skirmishing warfare, and that likely gave them an advantage over the cumbersome and expensive chariot-based armies of the major empires (as an example).

I thought the Sea People were looking to settle Egypt en masse. Apparently the illustrations the Egyptians made of them show them with boats that contain women and children, indicating not just raiding but settlement of the Nile Valley. If that were their aim, Egypt might have a different demographic makeup if the invasions were successful.

Even if they did settle Egypt en-masse, there are still a lot more Egyptians than Sea Peoples at this time. The Libyans migrated into the delta slightly later on in very robust numbers, and they were still subsumed into the Egyptian population and culture.
Conquering Egypt - or part of Egypt - in this time period is like conquering China; you can do it, but you're going to become pretty damn Egyptianized in the process.
And, as I side, the OTL trend among Sea Peoples who settled down (such as the Peleset, who became the Philistines), was to assimilate into the local cultures - and that was in the Levant, where many urban centres and state institutions had been heavily damaged; Egypt has a lot more cultural weight to throw around than that.
 
Reading about historical account of the city of Ugarit, I find it very hard to believe that the "Sea Peoples" were simply a migrating force of settlers.

Why burn a thriving trading city to the ground if your looking find land for woman and children?

No, I believe most signs point to the Mycean or Aegan origin, as they were war like and in close proximity

Be careful to not make every city destroyed the work of Sea Peoples : you had enough rivalries and warring people already in the region that other suspects could be seen.

It's interesting to see that Ammurapi's troops were at the time of the destruction already in Anatolia

My father, behold, the enemy's ships came (here); my cities(?) were burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops and chariots(?) are in the Land of Hatti, and all my ships are in the Land of Lukka?...Thus, the country is abandoned to itself. May my father know it: the seven ships of the enemy that came here inflicted much damage upon us

If the responsibles of the destruction were Sea Peoples, it would have meant for them to have bypassed Ugarit's armies. Which while still possible, open other hypothesis.

It's worth mentioning that what was the real event there wasn't the destruction of the city : it was already plundered by other foes, such as Egyptians not too long then. What is important is that the city was abandoned, that its inhabitants simply decided it wasn't worth it (it could be, of course, related to the presence of migrating/raiding bands such as the Sea Peoples, making rebuilding and re-settlement far less interesting).

Sea Peoples doesn't seem to have been that more destructive than other regional peoples, but that the era's context made these destruction having more impact.
 
Other thing: according to egyptian tradition, Ramses defeated the peleset (aka, philistines) and settled them in OTL Gaza Strip.

But if they had won, I imagine a greater Philistine.
 
Top