WI David conquered Egypt

[octoberman]

After the reign of Ramesses III, a long, slow decline of royal power in Egypt followed. Third Intermediate Period of ancient Egypt began with the death of Pharaoh Ramesses XI in 1077 BC, which ended the New Kingdom. After that the pharaohs of the Twenty-first Dynasty ruled from Tanis, but were mostly active only in Lower Egypt. Meanwhile, the High Priests of Amun at Thebes effectively ruled Middle and Upper Egypt in all but name.

Whereas Israel peak under David but it was split under his grandson Rehoboam. Whereas Egypt was reunited by Shoshenq I who vassalized the Israelites. But What if David capitalized on the disunity in Egypt and conquered it

Near east around 1000 BCE

Israel under David

How will this effect the Israelites ?
How will this effect Egyptian and Middle Eastern history ?

 

[Hearkener]

David is not a historical person, but a figure of Abrahamic mythology. If he's actually based on a real person, he'd be a minor Canaanite ruler. Speaking of Israel in this period is highly anachronistic as well.

 

[jacob ningen]

After the reign of Ramesses III, a long, slow decline of royal power in Egypt followed. Third Intermediate Period of ancient Egypt began with the death of Pharaoh Ramesses XI in 1077 BC, which ended the New Kingdom. After that the pharaohs of the Twenty-first Dynasty ruled from Tanis, but were mostly active only in Lower Egypt. Meanwhile, the High Priests of Amun at Thebes effectively ruled Middle and Upper Egypt in all but name.

Whereas Israel peak under David but it was split under his grandson Rehoboam. Whereas Egypt was reunited by Shoshenq I who vassalized the Israelites. But What if David capitalized on the disunity in Egypt and conquered it

Near east around 1000 BCE
View attachment 881386

Israel under David
View attachment 881390

How will effect the Israelites ?
How will this effect Egyptian and Middle Eastern history ?

One Yeb may never arise as a counterpoint to Jerusalem. Personally I prefer a miminal David with much of the early Davidic being Omride a la Finkelstein. syncretism would be even larger. Since Egypt would e the larger and more prosperous and intelligensia we'd probably see more Egyptianisms and less Babylon-assyrianisms in the codified Tanach.

 

[Hearkener]

Since Egypt would e the larger and more prosperous and intelligensia we'd probably see more Egyptianisms and less Babylon-assyrianisms in the codified Tanach.

After a couple of generations, I doubt the conquerors would be much more than Egyptians of peculiar ancestry. The Hyksos, who probably came from a similar background, were quickly absorbed into Egyptian culture.

 

[jacob ningen]

After a couple of generations, I doubt the conquerors would be much more than Egyptians of peculiar ancestry. The Hyksos, who probably came from a similar background, were quickly absorbed into Egyptian culture.

precisely.

 

[jacob ningen]

David is not a historical person, but a figure of Abrahamic mythology. If he's actually based on a real person, he'd be a minor Canaanite ruler. Speaking of Israel in this period is highly anachronistic as well.

precisely I see Kings as a Josiah era apologetics and justification for conquests under the rationale of restoring a "David" golden age that never existed.

 

[Lalli]

David is not a historical person, but a figure of Abrahamic mythology. If he's actually based on a real person, he'd be a minor Canaanite ruler. Speaking of Israel in this period is highly anachronistic as well.

True. There is very very few evidence David's histority. And even lesser any Kingdom of Israel around 1000 BCE. If David was historic person, he was probably some relatively strong war lord who controlled Jerusalem and its immediate surrounding areas. And even considering of the Bible him had other worries so he hardly could had been able to conquer Egypt. And probably even wouldn't had wanted that. Why to conquer big nation with much bigger population where Hebrews would are minority? They probably would are just incorporated to Egyptian society or then expelled.

 

[Hearkener]

And probably even wouldn't had wanted that. Why to conquer big nation with much bigger population where Hebrews would are minority? They probably would are just incorporated to Egyptian society or then expelled.

The Egyptians have cool stuff that you can steal tho. I doubt "David" would even think in terms of "Hebrews"; there's his family, his tribe and his allies, and his job is making them all rich by organizing warfare and preventing infightin. Such is the role of the tribal chief.

Probably there'd be a page in every Egyptian history book about that one time a certain Dwjd conquered the Delta and his descendents ruled it for a century or so before getting overthrown.

 

[jacob ningen]

The Egyptians have cool stuff that you can steal tho. I doubt "David" would even think in terms of "Hebrews"; there's his family, his tribe and his allies, and his job is making them all rich by organizing warfare and preventing infightin. Such is the role of the tribal chief.

Probably there'd be a page in every Egyptian history book about that one time a certain aDwjd conquered the Delta and his descendents ruled it for a century or so before getting overthrown.

probably. The hyksos example is informative

 

[Aluma]

I very much think the idea that David's figure was invented is bollocks and Im fairly certain a chiefstan did unite the hebrew tribes at some point since fragmentation happened shortly after

That said even if we go with the Biblical David who is fair to say is significantly buffed that wouldnt work out for two reasons

1) Religion: the biblical hebrews were strictly forbidden by God of returning to Egypt, sure some did and trade happened but conquering Egypt very much means moving the israelites back to the Pharaoh's land and that is anathema

2) Too many enemies: the israelites were busy, they were fighting both the canaanites and the philistines, sometimes with Egypt's support, so trying to take on the them was out of question

 

[Silver01]

David is not a historical person, but a figure of Abrahamic mythology. If he's actually based on a real person, he'd be a minor Canaanite ruler. Speaking of Israel in this period is highly anachronistic as well.

The stone baring his name likely proofs that he was the debate is that he was just a minor king or did the united monarchy exist

 

[octoberman]

probably. The hyksos example is informative

Elaborate further

 

[jacob ningen]

The stone baring his name likely proofs that he was the debate is that he was just a minor king or did the united monarchy exist

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/biblical-historicity-or-lackthereof-thread.546105/ especially when @Metempsychosis @durante and i go on the bytdwd is actually referring to Elishat rabbit-hole

 

[jacob ningen]

Elaborate further

so as Im sure you are aware the Hyksos were a cavalry based canaanite dynasty during the second Intermediary Period that ruled from Avaris. They Egyptified during that time but were kicked out by Thutmoses I. Josephus claims them as the inspiration for the Exodus story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaris

 

[Hearkener]

1) Religion: the biblical hebrews were strictly forbidden by God of returning to Egypt, sure some did and trade happened but conquering Egypt very much means moving the israelites back to the Pharaoh's land and that is anathema

The biblical hebrews were not a thing in the 10th century BCE. These laws and prohibitions likely wouldn't exist for centuries at this point.

I very much think the idea that David's figure was invented is bollocks and Im fairly certain a chiefstan did unite the hebrew tribes at some point since fragmentation happened shortly after

I believe that all of the United Kingdom's history was invented whole cloth at a later date, and then revised to fit with the religious ideas of post-exile Judaism. The basis of this story are likely very minor, regional figures that serve as focal points for Hebrew ethnogenesis.

Basically, if neither Cuneiform nor Egyptian sources confirm these stories, we cannot consider them historical.

The stone baring his name likely proofs that he was the debate is that he was just a minor king or did the united monarchy exist

A stone with a name on it isn't proof of anything. Even if there was a Canaanite ruler called David, he would not be identical with the literary character of David, and hence the later cannot be used to draw conclusions on the former at all.

 

[jacob ningen]

The biblical hebrews were not a thing in the 10th century BCE. These laws and prohibitions likely wouldn't exist for centuries at this point.

I believe that all of the United Kingdom's history was invented whole cloth at a later date, and then revised to fit with the religious ideas of post-exile Judaism. The basis of this story are likely very minor, regional figures that serve as focal points for Hebrew ethnogenesis.

Basically, if neither Cuneiform nor Egyptian sources confirm these stories, we cannot consider them historical.

A stone with a name on it isn't proof of anything. Even if there was a Canaanite ruler called David, he would not be identical with the literary character of David, and hence the later cannot be used to draw conclusions on the former at all.

Id put it at 586 BCE for a hebrew identity with the Deuteronomist being Late Monarchy to Persian era.

 

[Hearkener]

Id put it at 586 BCE for a hebrew identity with the Deuteronomist being Late Monarchy to Persian era.

I tend to agree. The terms "Hebrew identity" and "Judaism" are certainly contentious before the Babylonian exile, as much of the Abrahamic cosmogeny is strikingly Sumero-Akkadian (the Biblical flood is taken verbatim from Atra-hasis).

Biblical history has been on the retreat for centuries, with the timeline of historicity moving closer and closer to the present day. It used to be contended that the Flood was a historical event, then that Exodus constitutes a historical source, then that Deuteronomy does. My overall take-away is to not trust anything in the Bible that we don't have outsiders' perspectives on. We know for a fact that the Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian conquests happened, and probably everything after Alexander is historical, if moralized.

 

[Silver01]

A stone with a name on it isn't proof of anything

The Mesha Stele is supposed evidence of the existence of king David, while the book of Samuel is far removed from 1000 bc. The Mesha Stele and the more concrete Tel Dan Steele do mention David house by the 9th century David was an enough important figure that kings wanted to be associated to him
As for the united monarchy it's still a debate so since David likely was a real person was he a minor or major chief or did he actually rule united monarchy

 

[jacob ningen]

I tend to agree. The terms "Hebrew identity" and "Judaism" are certainly contentious before the Babylonian exile, as much of the Abrahamic cosmogeny is strikingly Sumero-Akkadian (the Biblical flood is taken verbatim from Atra-hasis).

Biblical history has been on the retreat for centuries, with the timeline of historicity moving closer and closer to the present day. It used to be contended that the Flood was a historical event, then that Exodus constitutes a historical source, then that Deuteronomy does. My overall take-away is to not trust anything in the Bible that we don't have outsiders' perspectives on. We know for a fact that the Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian conquests happened, and probably everything after Alexander is historical, if moralized.

Totally although Dr. Milller takes the divergences as the significant parts ie how the authors of the Tanach played and subverted Sumero-Akkadian and in Shemot, Egyptian expectations a la Brecht or Johnson that is the important part

 

[jacob ningen]

The Mesha Stele is supposed evidence of the existence of king David, while the book of Samuel is far removed from 1000 bc. The Mesha Stele and the more concrete Tel Dan Steele do mention David house by the 9th century David was an enough important figure that kings wanted to be associated to him
As for the united monarchy it's still a debate so since David likely was a real person was he a minor or major chief or did he actually rule united monarchy

Mesha IIRC is more Beit Omri and Ahab not David