WI: Sea People Establish Egyptian Dynasty

We don't know enough...

.... to judge who these people were, or if they even existed, or what their chances were of doing anything. The Bronze Age Collapse is a long time ago, and I for one don't think these "Sea People" were the main cause of it.
 
They did invade. The were stopped, apparently in a battle in or around the Nile Delta led by Ramses the 3rd (I think). OTL they are driven off and became the Phillistenes.

They win, kill Ramses. Set up dynasty. This might be good for Egypt and the OTL Pharohs don't seem to be anything to write home about and a conquering dynasty would be led by more effective leaders. IMHO very do able.
 
It's basically a moot question. We basically know nothing about the sea people's. Most of this era of history is a cypher. It's basically pure speculation to try and figure out what they'd do.

Especially since they won't really change the environmental factors that lead to the Bronze Age collapse. I doubt they could rule any better than the OTL leaders.
 
AFAIK/C, the Sea Peoples were from the Black Sea. Egypt had black pharoahs from Ethiopia, I don't think this would change much. So all that would change is that Egypt can add whatever proto-Slav Sarmatian Pontics or whatever to their list of dynasts.
 
Sea Peoples is a term that encompass many nations, their identification is based only on similar linguistics and the egyptian history, thats why its hard to track them, but i assume if they win in Egypt, perhaps they wouldnt be so unknown..
 
They did invade. The were stopped, apparently in a battle in or around the Nile Delta led by Ramses the 3rd (I think). OTL they are driven off and became the Phillistenes.

They win, kill Ramses. Set up dynasty. This might be good for Egypt and the OTL Pharohs don't seem to be anything to write home about and a conquering dynasty would be led by more effective leaders. IMHO very do able.

AFAIK/C, the Sea Peoples were from the Black Sea. Egypt had black pharoahs from Ethiopia, I don't think this would change much. So all that would change is that Egypt can add whatever proto-Slav Sarmatian Pontics or whatever to their list of dynasts.

There is little evidence for where they came from* or what happened to them**, but it does seem likely that they would have been "just another dynasty", but the shake-up that they caused could make their successors able to adapt to changing times, stopping them from being outcompeted by Assyria.

*Probably around Anatolia
**most likely integration into Egyptian society, but the Philistine idea does have basis.
 
AFAIK/C, the Sea Peoples were from the Black Sea. Egypt had black pharoahs from Ethiopia, I don't think this would change much. So all that would change is that Egypt can add whatever proto-Slav Sarmatian Pontics or whatever to their list of dynasts.

Do we even know they were from the Black Sea? I've seen it suggested that they might have been Minoan, Mycenaean, Southern Italian, or from Southern Anatolia but never from the Black Sea.

I agree that it wouldn't be terribly significant though. It would just be another foreign dynasty like Nubian one. Depending on where the Sea People were actually from though we might get some interesting architectural styles though.


Pio2013 said:
Sea Peoples is a term that encompass many nations, their identification is based only on similar linguistics and the egyptian history, thats why its hard to track them, but i assume if they win in Egypt, perhaps they wouldnt be so unknown..

True, but we don't know enough about them to even guess at what else we'd know.
 
Isn't it speculated that they are the same group that may have contributed to the collapse of the Minoans? Could they be the same people as the Dorians?
 
Don't forget the Hyksos, a multi-ethic group that included Semites and Hurrians.

It is very likely that the Sea Peoples included early Greeks, since after being defeated by the Egyptians, some of the component groups settled in Canaan and became Philistines, whose pottery was almost identical to that of the contemporary early Greeks. The architecture of the earliest Philistines was similar to that of the Greeks as well. Names recorded by the Egyptians for specific groups of Sea Peoples include the Denyen (Greek Danaoi?), the Ekwesh (Greek Achaeans?) and the Peleset (Greek, later becoming the Philistines?). From Wikipedia:

The archaeological evidence from the southern coastal plain of ancient Palestine, termed Philistia in the Hebrew Bible, indicates a disruption of the Canaanite culture that existed during the Late Bronze Age and its replacement (with some integration) by a culture with a possibly foreign (mainly Aegean) origin. This includes distinct pottery, which at first belongs to the Mycenaean IIIC tradition (albeit of local manufacture) and gradually transforms into a uniquely Philistine pottery. Mazar says:

... in Philistia, the producers of Mycenaean IIIC pottery must be identified as the Philistines. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the Philistines were a group of Mycenaean Greeks who immigrated to the east ... Within several decades ... a new bichrome style, known as the "Philistine", appeared in Philistia ...

The identifications of Denyen with the Greek Danaans and Ekwesh with the Greek Achaeans are long-standing issues in Bronze Age scholarship, whether Greek, Hittite or Biblical, especially as they lived "in the isles". If the Greeks do appear as Sea Peoples, what were they doing? Michael Wood gives a good summary of the question and the hypothetical role of the Greeks (who have already been proposed as the identity of the Philistines above):

... were the sea peoples ... in part actually composed of Mycenaean Greeks – rootless migrants, warrior bands and condottieri on the move ...? Certainly there seem to be suggestive parallels between the war gear and helmets of the Greeks ... and those of the Sea Peoples ...

There were other non-Greek groups as well, almost certainly including several Anatolian peoples such as the Lukka (Anatolian Lycians?).
 
Top