Underrated warriors

Not this shit again.

the kingdoms existed, but the israelites were likely just "canaanites". there was no conquest, not enough destroyed cities dating to the same period. what really gives it away is that Hebrew before 1000 BC was the exact same language as Phoenician

50 (you)s inbound.

I think they're pretty highly rated.

Modern tellings of the Crusades do underrate Norman and Frankish warriors though. "The Arabs were just disorganized, they were so much more sophisticated."

They were more sophisticated, but the Latins were just as disorganized and feuded between each other and with the Greeks too.

Bohemond of Antioch had a pretty good run against superior forces.

>ferocious fighters who actively sought death
sure but also largely untrained and any of the military gains they made are because of the weakness of their enemies at the time (syria in the middle of civil war and the incompetent iraqi army) rather than their own military power

Jerusalem is besieged; there's no way out. Sennacherib is going to crush Israel once and for all.

And the next morning 185,000 of Sennacharib's soldiers are dead.

Not above 20.

They still managed to unify the entire area under one political entity. David and Solomon were historical rulers who controlled the entire area. They had to fight for that control.

Also, why would a people have a national myth of being outsiders and slaves if they had been there the entire time.

Either way, by the time of the Maccabean revolt and Jewish Revolts, the Jews were a unified people. Juddah also clearly did withstand the Assyrians.

Kingdoms, true.
>Muh scripture

"The United Monarchy is the name given to the Israelite kingdom of Israel and Judah,[6][7][8][9] during the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon, as depicted in the Hebrew Bible. This is traditionally dated between 1050 and 930 BCE. On the succession of Solomon's son, Rehoboam, in c. 930 BCE the biblical account reports that the country split into two kingdoms; the Kingdom of Israel (including the cities of Shechem and Samaria) in the north and the Kingdom of Judah (containing Jerusalem) in the south.

Modern scholarship has challenged the biblical account using both literary and archaeological evidence, leading to questions about the historicity of some or all of the account, including the very existence of a united kingdom.[10][11][12][13][14]"

If there was a big Hebrew Kingdom there, their neighbors would comment about it.

Except we hear nothing from the likes Egyptians or Assyrians save for the fact that they both say that the area is filled with little kingdoms of semites running around or being bitched by Egyptian/Hittite/Assyrian hegemonies.

the United Monarchy probably didn't exist. Jerusalem was too small David and Solomon's time to be an administrative center. the Judean hill country at the time only had a population of 2000. there's no way they could have conquered Israel all the way up past Galilee and Edom and Moab and Aram. the Ephraim hill country alone had a population of 40,000. we have hardly any public works projects we can assign to the period nor any of the walls Solomon supposedly constructed

>Also, why would a people have a national myth of being outsiders and slaves if they had been there the entire time.

Oy Vey, don't be anti-Semitic, Goyim! Remember the Jewish slaves, 6 million firstborns killed!

Maybe not above 10 IQ points. How do you remember to breathe? Are you in an iron lung?

>Juddah also clearly did withstand the Assyrians.

Then how did they conquer Egypt?

well since breathing is primarily automatic as long as I don't think about breathing I don't need to consciously control it

Lucky for you, huh!

yep, I just need to make sure I keep my head above water

Fedora's cite studies that undermine the bible on an open source platform anyone can edit.

You're also cherry picking there bud. Same article mentions Egyptian sources talking about Israel from 1200 on.

The Bible story might very well be inaccurate, but the Babylonians certainly do write about a Hebrew kingdom.

The Romans certainly though the old boundaries were long established.

There is also very little historical documentation on the founding of Rome. The founding myth is surely false, yet we know that Rome existed before we get clear documents on its existence.

Of course most Hebrews were Canaanite decedents. Do you think all Italians were descended from families who were in Rome at the founding?

Gilgamesh also isn't historically accurate, but it lets us know when Sumerians were around.

Lots of nomadic people conquered large areas without having lots of public works or large cities to administrate from.

Oh, no, you don't need to do that. You'll be fine. You'll evolve gills.

There is a book called "Wine of Satan" that is a historical fiction about Bohemond of Antioch. Its breaddy good.

There is evidence of a population explosion in the highlands a century before. Population is estimated at many times what you wrote. Read the whole articles, don't just skim to cherry pick.

"The southern tribes, together with the Aaronid priesthood, remained in Jerusalem, with the city becoming the capital of the Kingdom of Judah.[95][96] Archeological remains from the ancient Israelite period also include Siloam Tunnel, an aqueduct built by Judean king Hezekiah and decorated with ancient Hebrew inscription, known as Siloam Inscription,[97] Broad Wall a defensive fortification built in the 8th century BCE, also by Hezekiah,[98] Monolith of Silwan, Tomb of the Royal Steward, which were decorated with monumental Hebrew inscriptions,[99] and Israelite Tower, remnants of ancient fortifications, built from large, sturdy rocks with carved cornerstones.[100] A huge water reservoir dating from this period was discovered in 2012 near Robinson's Arch, indicating the existence of a densely built-up quarter across the area west of the Temple Mount during the Judean kingdom.[101]"

I'm not sure if you are replying to me or not since you didn't reply to any particular post but I agree that there were Kingdoms called Israel and Judah and that the Bible has some useful historical information in it. let me nit pick a bit here on the egyptian stele that mentions Israel around 1200 BC though. the scholars aren't sure that it refers to a unified political entity, of course this isn't the picture in Judges either. also it doesn't follow that Israelites were a seperate group that conquered and intermarried with Canaanites. we can tell this happened with the Philistines. we see Mycenaean greek pottery start being locally made in along the coast which then gradually merges with local pottery styles. no such thing in the hill country. all pottery we can find there stays the same and there isn't much destruction of cities like in Joshua. instead most of the cities gradually shrink in size at the same time the number of villages in the hill country increase. the most logical conclusion is that people left the canaanite cities for these villages due to the economy collapsing.

The 20th century French.

>The conquest of Canaan during early antiquity.
Never happened

The Catalan company is pretty underrated,they stomped the Turks,while they were heavily outnumbered and were able to create 2 Ducjies in Greece for 100 years,surviving constant strikes from the turks. Also the Castillian raiding fleet of the XIV is very underrated,bith in its importance and impressive record.

Yeah, not arguing the recording isn't great around that period. But there was a unified political entity and culture there by the time of the Assyrian conquest, and certainly be the time of the Babylonian Exile.

8th century BC is pretty late compared to what I'm talking about. 12th through 9th century BC most growth was in Ephraim and barely anyone lived in Jerusalem or anywhere south of it

ALMOGAVARS

>user decides what happened in the past.

I agree that on that. but there isn't much evidence for state formation in the region before the Omride dynasty, although I think something must have led up to it

I meant to reply to

Pretty based. It would make a good movie.

Being sophisticated doesn't mean shit when the dudes you're facing have a habbit of wearing heavier armour and spend the majority of their time at home fighting each other and have gotten really good at fighting pitched battles, which you keep being forced to face them in. You can be as sophisticated as you want, an axe or sword to the face will still wreck you.

The first crusade was an absolute clusterfuck, and there's no way it should have succeeded in taking Jerusalem, but it did, and that's fucking cool.

>30,000

Massively inflated number, a lot of those guys were at home and paid their commanders to report them as present, the rest fled because they didn't give enough of a fuck.

Iraqi army a shit, at least at the time of the battle.

The Qizilbash of Sah Ismail I (Safavid) were absolutely fanatical soldiers

They were on a roll until Chaldran, their descendants today (in Turkey) are pacifists

If the Hebrews really were captives in Egypt, then Egyptian sources would have said something about it. There is neither archaeological nor literary evidence of this.

One Hundred Years War men-at-arms.

Also Europeans fighting in the Crusades under the Lionheart.

I'd say the Sikh or Gurkha (I never see anyone talk about them here.)

Gurkha are badass.

Someone had a grandpa's war story the other day about Gurkhas in WW2 kicking the ass of Japanese soldiers in hand to hand combat.

Macabebes

First to defy the Spanish.
Fought as mercenaries for the Spanish against the Chinese, Muslims, the Dutch and the Brits.
Known for their bravery, as Gen. William Draper, head of the British fleet that captured Manila in 1762 wrote, “They never retreated and they fought like mad dogs, “gnawing at our bayonets.”
They were also known for their loyalty, they fought for the Spanish and then the Americans.