The Hyksos were a predominantly Semitic people with Hurrian and Indo-European elements who settled in the Delta and invaded Egypt around the 17th century BC, establishing the 15th dynasty, where they introduced many technical innovations responsible for New Kingdom imperialism. They introduced a new style of warfare, involving the heavy usage of chariots and better horses. Despite this, they were fundamentally a foreign dynasty, and Egyptians had always harbored sentiment to "save Egypt and smite the Asiatic" since the beginning of this dynasty, exacerbated by the existence of another native Egyptian dynasty in the south. So I have two PODs in mind. The first is that instead of Apepi succeeding Khyan and usurping the throne, it is Khyan's son Yannasai who does so, or that the plan later on in the dynasty to partition Thebes is successful, and Kamose doesn't intercept the message. Either way, can the Hyksos survive as a truly long-lived dynasty, leaving a bigger mark on Egypt? Would it be more well-known than OTL, and would they still get overthrown? How does this affect the New Kingdom, if it happens at all? And what are the effects beyond, in the Levant and Mesopotamia?
WI: Hyksos not overthrown?
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
To clear away a couple of misconceptions: there really isn't a consensus on whether there was a Hyksos invasion or not. Since the end of the 12th Dynasty and the gradual erosion of power of the central government at Itjtawy the Eastern Delta was increasingly settled by people from Asia. The 14th dynasty, whose kings also bear mostly Semitic names and most likely of Canaanite origin, ruled a more or less independent kingdom in the Eastern Delta before the Hyksos. The 14th Dynasty probably ruled the Delta from Avaris while the native 13th Dynasty ruled the rest of Egypt from Itjtawy. There followed a period of famine and disease (mass graves have been found from around this time) which meant the end of the 14th Dynasty. They were then supplanted by a new group of (most likely) Canaanite origin, whom we know as the Hyksos, who founded the 15th Dynasty. So while it is possible that the Hyksos violently invaded Egypt and seized control of the Delta it is also quite possible that it was a more gradual process, with them only seizing power after the 14th Dynasty had been fatally weakened.
Another thing about the Hyksos that is often stated but for which there is little evidence is that they were responsible for the introduction of the chariot to Egypt. There is no Egyptian text or inscription that refers to the Hyksos using chariots nor is there any depiction or other evidence that suggests that they used them. Egyptian texts do mention the use of chariots against the Hyksos, but never by them.
If the Hyksos succeed in defeating the Thebans and establish their rule over the entire land their kings will have to make some choices. Will they continue to rule from Avaris or will they settle in Memphis? The country has practically always been ruled from that region (and still is today), and ruling Upper Egypt from the Eastern Delta is probably not a good idea, especially if the old Theban Kingdom has been partitioned with the Nubians. Speaking of the Nubians, even if there was an alliance between them and the Hyksos I don't see it lasting very long, if the Hyksos kings want to be seen as true kings of Egypt they will sooner or later try to expel the Nubians and perhaps even conquer Nubia itself.
One thing that is quite likely to happen is that the Hyksos continue to integrate into the Egyptian culture. Already Hyksos kings used pharaonic titles and the last Hyksos rulers no longer used the 'Heqa khasut' title, which translates to 'ruler of foreign lands', and might indicate that they wanted to be seen as proper Egyptian kings. At the same time however continued settlement from Asians in the Eastern Delta could lead to an increasingly mixed population in the northern part of the country, so the cultural exchange won't be just one way.
If they successfully manage to portray themselves as true Egyptian kings than I don't see why the Hyksos couldn't establish a long lasting dynasty. OTL there isn't any evidence that there was resistance against their rule in Lower Egypt, nor is there evidence that they were particularly cruel or oppressive outside of propaganda from the Theban dynasties. A long lasting Hyksos rule could be prosperous for Egypt, if they manage to expand into (or hold on to) the Levant and the trade routes there. They might end up ruling a kingdom not unlike New Kingdom Egypt, at least in Egypt itself and the Levant.
Of course no dynasty lasts forever, and the perception of Hyksos rule will largely depend on what comes after them. If another Egyptianized Asian group from the Delta takes over after them not much will change, but if a self-declared pharaoh from Upper Egypt marches down the Nile to evict the Asiatics the Hyksos are likely to be vilified again.
Another thing about the Hyksos that is often stated but for which there is little evidence is that they were responsible for the introduction of the chariot to Egypt. There is no Egyptian text or inscription that refers to the Hyksos using chariots nor is there any depiction or other evidence that suggests that they used them. Egyptian texts do mention the use of chariots against the Hyksos, but never by them.
If the Hyksos succeed in defeating the Thebans and establish their rule over the entire land their kings will have to make some choices. Will they continue to rule from Avaris or will they settle in Memphis? The country has practically always been ruled from that region (and still is today), and ruling Upper Egypt from the Eastern Delta is probably not a good idea, especially if the old Theban Kingdom has been partitioned with the Nubians. Speaking of the Nubians, even if there was an alliance between them and the Hyksos I don't see it lasting very long, if the Hyksos kings want to be seen as true kings of Egypt they will sooner or later try to expel the Nubians and perhaps even conquer Nubia itself.
One thing that is quite likely to happen is that the Hyksos continue to integrate into the Egyptian culture. Already Hyksos kings used pharaonic titles and the last Hyksos rulers no longer used the 'Heqa khasut' title, which translates to 'ruler of foreign lands', and might indicate that they wanted to be seen as proper Egyptian kings. At the same time however continued settlement from Asians in the Eastern Delta could lead to an increasingly mixed population in the northern part of the country, so the cultural exchange won't be just one way.
If they successfully manage to portray themselves as true Egyptian kings than I don't see why the Hyksos couldn't establish a long lasting dynasty. OTL there isn't any evidence that there was resistance against their rule in Lower Egypt, nor is there evidence that they were particularly cruel or oppressive outside of propaganda from the Theban dynasties. A long lasting Hyksos rule could be prosperous for Egypt, if they manage to expand into (or hold on to) the Levant and the trade routes there. They might end up ruling a kingdom not unlike New Kingdom Egypt, at least in Egypt itself and the Levant.
Of course no dynasty lasts forever, and the perception of Hyksos rule will largely depend on what comes after them. If another Egyptianized Asian group from the Delta takes over after them not much will change, but if a self-declared pharaoh from Upper Egypt marches down the Nile to evict the Asiatics the Hyksos are likely to be vilified again.