Sea people's overrun Egypt

ar-pharazon

Banned
Quite famously Egypt was the only state to endure throughout the Bronze Age collapse and is recorded to repulsed several incursions from the mysterious sea people's.

What if Egypt had been overrun and fragmented in around 1270 BC or so?

How would this have affected the further history and Egypt in particular?
 
Do they stay around afterwards? Paradoxically we may end up having a better idea of who they are/where they came from if they end up establishing a new dynasty even among fragmented states
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I imagine them sacking the major cities and destroying lots of stuff and reducing the population, and looting everything not tied down and then running off.

Leaving Egypt far worse for ware.
 
But Egypt was overrun by Sea Peoples continuing into the 20th century. The thalassocratic British Empire that is.

British were better than previous management (of course being more friendly than Ottomans is a low bar)

Wrong Sea People. The Sea people that overran Ancient Egypt were not Britons from the place that would one day be Roman Brittania. Or... while unlikely maybe they are! We have no idea who the Ancient Sea people are.
 
I personally like the Sardinia theory because it lends significance to the mysterious ancient stone structures all over the island

It also makes Sardinia relevant for once
 
It also makes Sardinia relevant for once

In the Punic Wars and the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, 3/4 of Rome's grain imports docked with Sardinia. For the Punic Wars, this was important because Hannibal looted lots of the food and if a Cathigian expedition could take it, Rome had about 3 years worth of stored grain assuming they couldn't import or farm anything (if Hannibal somehow torched Northern Italy again). After AD 420, the Egypt grain was used as a bargaining chip for Byzantium to control Rome and the grain from Africa was threatened by Vandals.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I always thought the sea people's came from Crete and the Peloponnessian isles.

With some maybe coming from farther afield.
 
I think its likely they came from several places; crete, grece, Anatolia, etc. And it may well have been that dissatisfied locals joined up with them. The bronze age collapse wasn't solely due to sea peoples after all, climate, bad harvests, economic down turn, etc. played their part
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I always figured that yeah-it was a conglomeration of people's and groups combined with various internal and regional structural factors.
 
We have a clear idea that at least a significant portion of the Sea Peoples came from the general Aegean area: Greece, Asia Minor, quite likely both. The Italian onomastic connections may relate to groups coming FROM there (Sicily and Sardinia, presumably) or TO there (as in, warrior elites that ended in those islands and brought their names to the locals; that would be very vaguely corroborated by later Greek myths, but should be taken cautiously). It is also clear that the SP were not an homogeneous bunch. Linguistically they may have spoken Greek, Luwian, a Thyrsenian language (o more), ancient Sardinian (of which we know nothing), possibly something Italic (Sicelian?), Eteocretan, and maybe also other languages (we don't know if Phrygian movements were somehow connected). Quite likely all of the above.
 
I won't lie, it is completely out there, but I've always wondered if there wasn't a Tartessos-Sea People link. After all Findley does suggest that there was a great number of migrations that triggered it all, I don't see why Spain wouldn't be included in that, and have its cultures impacted. Perhaps the Tartessos of the 8th Century BC is the result of migration into the region that displaced whosoever was there before.

I mean, it doesn't overly matter because of the cascade of different invasions, but it came to mind.

But as to overrunning Egypt? I'm convinced it is possible, but I could see them establishing themselves in the Delta and essentially cascading Egypt into another 'Intermediate Period' - which all in all might be a damn good thing. The overall decline of grain production, famines, etc that characterised the Bronze Age Collapse probably won't collapse all of Egypt, but mainly the central authority, leaving the various Nomarchs to fight amongst themselves.

One of these could well forgo chariot-style warfare with all its complex prerequisites for a more 'Desert Horse/Valley Hoplite' affair, and rebuild a new Central Authority with a revamped style of warfare, and decentralising some of the more centralised practices (i.e. letting farmers or locals determine what to grow, have their own seed stocks, etc)

THAT 'Iron Kingdom' Egypt could be stronger, more agile, and more dangerous than the Egypt that survived. It'd also likely be established around the Wadi Hammamat trade route (perhaps even in Quseir), as then they can import iron smelting from abroad, and exploit the mountains of the Eastern Desert in relative isolation before returning to the Nile.

What I don't see is the Sea Peoples going further. The Delta is a sweet prize. The Hyksos saw that, and if Egypt can reorganise and reunited after the Hyksos, they can do so again after the 'Sea Peoples'.
 
Top