What the fuck was the sea people's problem?

No one is pretending to know everything about them. We do know that a large army destroyed a ton of large kingdoms in quick succession using both a land and sea army. "Sea peoples" is just a label given to these unknown people so we can discuss them since it's the only name we have for them thanks to Egypt having no idea who the fuck they were as well.

They were the Carthaginians
Carthago delenda est

1. Actually, we don't even know if it was one group, many groups, etc. Historians just don't have evidence for anything yet so they just toss over this big umbrella of events. It could be one group, several groups and maybe harsh times forced many smaller groups to begin raiding, etc. So, we can say there is zero evidence for them. We know shit happened, but who or what did it isn't exactly known at all.

2. They did not destroy kingdoms. They raided cities and apparently fucked off. They didn't topple kingdoms like Mongols did. If there had been such an extended campaign and occupation we would have evidence. So, whoever they were were very nomadic. Could've been a rogue army group or fucking pirates for all we know.

So the Mycenaens, Hittites, and Mittani weren't kingdoms?

>There is no evidence that they were real

>There is zero evidence for them existing.

Are you fucking retarded? We have plenty of evidence, and there's no single reason the Egyptian accounts should even be doubted.

>The only ones likely way off are the people who say they are survivors from Atlantis.

Yep, definitely retarded.

Its speculated there might've been an earthquakes or tsunamis activities northern part of the mediterranean.

They were Siceni and Sardegnan

Hard-headed bastards and complete dicks.

A kingdom that can be destroyed with the destruction of one city isn't really a kingdom. These were city states. A kingdom would be the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, etc.

What evidence? All I can find about it is Atlantean bullshit, or evidence that they were multiple different groups as some were circumcised meaning they fall under the "Habiru", some weird ones from the north with kilts and other garb with horns, a few pirate groups, etc.

To refer to them as one "people" is nonsense. Given what little is known it looks like various Middle Eastern nomadic tribes and northern European pagan tribes raiding anything they could get their hands on because times were rough and apparently was a big time of mass migrations.

A perfect storm for various tribes and groups to pick off whatever they could against weak as fuck city states and other towns.

You're joking right? The Hittites were bigger and more powerful than Egypt at this time period, and it obviously wasn't just one city of theirs that they destroyed, they obliterated the coastal cities where most people were and tore apart Hattusa so thoroughly that for thousands of years nobody could find the fucking thing. Are you the dude who thought medieval people couldn't sail to Sardinia or something?

Why would the Egyptians say the were attacked around the same period? Or do you mean they were invading refugees?

Nobody claimed for sure that they were one people, but to outright deny their existence, as you did earlier, is retarded.

Apparently the Hittites weren't because Egypt fucked them up several times and kept beating their asses, enslaving them, and enlisting them to fight. Sorry that your pet "kingdom" lost and a real kingdom won.

Except that's bullshit and you know it. The Hittite army was far larger and more active than Egypt in terms of expanding territory. In fact the stalemate at Khadesh was touted as victory in Egypt because they knew that if the Hittites continued attacking them they would've lost. the only reason Egypt defeated the Sea Peoples is because they had time to prepare and figure out how they attacked and separate the land and sea army.

You asked what their problem was as if they were one group and had one motivation when the little shreds we do have show the contrary.

And denying things with little evidence isn't retarded. Any time some shit gets written down doesn't mean it is real. We have a ton of accounts of mythological figures. Does this mean they are true too? We even have accounts of the Trojan war, so I guess that makes the Iliad and the Odyssey historical works rather than stories.

Are you even being serious? How can the Hittites be stronger and better when their "kingdom" got fucked and Egypt won? Obvioisly one was stronger. I don't even know what mental gymnastics you need to do to justify a nation that loses a town or two and dies as this glorious kingdom, when a real kingdom like Egypt beat the sea people lots of times, could clearly handle an invading force, and had better strategies as being stronger.

Hittite internet defense force? I don't get it.

>A kingdom that can be destroyed with the destruction of one city isn't really a kingdom. These were city states. A kingdom would be the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, etc.

Man, you have got your goalposts attached to the back of a fucking Ferrari, don'tcha?

Do you think Hati and Egypt were the only two Empires in the world at the time? The Hittites were sandwiched between Egypt and the Assyrians, not to mention every nation had to struggle to keep complete control over outer territories. The Hittites could've mobilized all of their forces and taken Egyptian territory (which by the way, they did take portions of Egyptian held territory during their wars) but that would leave them vulnerable to the Assyrians. Then there is also the independent city states in the area and keeping their client Kingdom of the Mittani in check. Egypt on the other hand had a bunch of Nigs hundreds of miles down the river, a few camel people wandering the desert, and the Hittites, who do you think they could spend most of their time worrying about?

The Hittites lacked a transport conduit like the Nile to unite the nation's resources at crucial points.

No. I just don't see how it is justified as a real kingdom when only one of those cities was even worth being called a city. One city surrounded by glorified hovels isn't a kingdom. They were even more inland and got wrecked. Meanwhile, Egypt, a real kingdom, had a decent army, fortifications, strategy, more than one city worth shit, etc. There's nothing wrong with being a city state and there were powerful ones in history, but you guys are sucking Hittite cock so hard like they were this amazing kingdom and were so impressive and rivalled Egypt. When in reality a few marauding pirates took them down and Egypt sent the invading forces of sea people back into the sea, enslaved, killed, or made them fight for them.

>And denying things with little evidence isn't retarded.

Except the evidence isn't "little", and there's no clear motivation to lie or exaggerate in this case, as opposed to the Trojan war.

I think he's the same Turk that was insisting Ramses II wasn't Great.

Who were they and why did they decide to attack many of the civilizations in the area?

You have apparently not studied this period in history even slightly. You questioned the fact that the Sea People even existed, you ignore the fact that the best Egypt could hope for against the Hittites is a stalemate which they constantly bragged about on giant billboard sized walls, you ignore the fact that even Egypt considered their victories against the Sea Peoples as a huge deal, you have no understanding of the accessory situations happening at the same time, and it seems like you don't understand how armies lose people when they are constantly fighting other similarly sized forces and how the Sea Peoples that the Egyptians fought were a diminished version that they still only beat specifically because they were able to confront half of the army at a time. Just go to bed already, Jamal. You aren't even Egyptian.

1. They were many groups apparently.

2. Every pirate, nomadic tribe, failed city state, and their mothers took advantage of an unstable period of weakened empires to loot what they could.

Rome lost battles to the king of eirprus.

They were still far, far stronger than the epirotes and had the capacity to wipe them from existence.

I never claimed to be Egyptian. But to deny that Egypt was superior is laughable. How are you gonna sit there and downgrade an empire we still talk about to this day to some second rate city state with one city worth anything and who got fucked by the sea people (while inland)? The same people the Egyptians beat time and time again.

You could not make your bias any more obvious. Jesus Christ, you are such a bitch that you defend the apparent honor of a shitty "kingdom" of one city and loose alliance of hovel villages. And this somehow beats a place like Egypt full of great cities, monuments, and other works. You gotta be fucking kidding me.

>MUH EGYPT
they didn't "beat them time and time again." The fought them and didn't lose ONE major battle, and then the two were too fucking busy with assyria to fight again.

>MUH EMPIRE
Yeah, and akkad had all of that shit too. "people still talk about it" is fucking relevant.

What empire? I would love to see anybody show me something impressive the Hittites did beyond their one capital city. Because I don't think peasants living in squalor and all but ready to break away at a moment's notice means you have a kingdom. It means your city state scares some local villages. I guess if that is a kingdom to you, then you have a warped perception. Usually kingdoms have more than one city and the means to defend said cities.

The Egyptians had ample trade routes, monuments, and other great works. When did the Hittites ever do shit? Give me one thing they did besides get destroyed by a poor nomadic group of pirates? Excellent """""""""empire"""""""" they had. At least Egypt didn't lose to them. That alone makes them a better empire.

Here, watch the video and then look at the picture. It'll help you understand. I can't help with your seeming inability to count, however, and I apologize for that.
youtube.com/watch?v=9e5EulekQcM

>they still only beat specifically because they were able to confront half of the army at a time.

That is the essence of strategy. Napoleon's main mode of operation was to mass and attack individual armies before the larger enemy forces could coalesce.

This discussion is like Mayweather vs McGregor arguments. Yeah, May may wins in that bullshit sport that is boxing, but in real life McGregor kills Mayweather by gouging his fucking eye out.

History is written by the victors, and there are no rules.

I ask for shit they did and you give me a youtube video? Guess even scholars know they didn't do shit.

O im laffin now m8. This is rich. How can you be this defensive over a second rate and borderline garbage fire tier state? The Assyrians (given you mentioned them) were even superior. And they got wiped the fuck out entirely.

And if that map is accurate, then you're telling me that the Hittites losing a tiny fraction of their empire to the sea people brought them down. A few villages and your empire goes under? That doesn't sound impressive to me at all, and especially not better than Egypt.

...

Jesus was real. Troy was a real place. We know this. Just because they feature in myths or old sources doesn't mean they didn't exist.

how do we know all those different conflicts were the same "sea people" ? what if all those descriptions are all different peoples?

>Jesus was real

[citation needed]

Time frame is too short. They were almost certainly an amalgamation of different groups of people, though.

Egypt was sitting a gold mine. With all the sea people's livelihood destroyed by natural disaster what's there to stop them from chasing the life they once had in their desperate peril?

I dont want to devolve OP's topic into a jesus thread but Jesus prob existed.

>An overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is more probable than not,[4][5][6][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[nb 5][13][nb 6][15]:168–173 While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[17][nb 8][19][20][21]

I was also under the impression that Homer's stuff was loosely based on events from the Mycenaean era but idk.

Retard

Philistines are in the bible and they are said to come from Crete

Carthage didn't even exist back then

ITT: autism

>1200 BC
>Canaan-Israel is under Egypt

Pick one

>Shekelesh

It was you retarded ignorant fucktard

The Carthaginians were Phoenicians, the Phoenicians were sea people

t. Richard 'muh i follow the egyptian chronology cause lol" Dawkins

>The Phoenicians were sea people

No, the Phoenicians were known as Canaanites/Fenkhu by the Egyptians and were the ones being attacked and hiring the sea peoples as mercenaries (though some citites were spared for some reason, maybe the bribed some sea peoples to attack other cities and spare theirs) and later emerged as an economic power after the BA collapse

??

Canaan was under Egyptian control until the end of the bronze age

>Phoenicians
>Canaanites
Pick one

They were the same people, same language too.

>I don't know where Canaan is

I know that you don't, but I do.

Only if you base your "flawed" chronology on the Egyptian archives and not the Bible.

How do you explain the 500 years gap of Egyptian-Hittite Dark Age ?

Canaan is south of Phoenicia

Tyre and Acre are not Canaan.

Except that the Egyptian archives were made in the time they speak about but the bible talks about "facts" that supposedly happened 500-1000 years before they were written.

>How do you explain the 500 years gap of Egyptian-Hittite Dark Age ?

There is no such gap

It isn't, you are a retard

"Canaan included what today are Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, northwestern Jordan, and some western areas of Syria.[70] According to archaeologist Jonathan N. Tubb, "Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites and Phoenicians undoubtedly achieved their own cultural identities, and yet ethnically they were all Canaanites", "the same people who settled in farming villages in the region in the 8th millennium BC."[71]"

The bible is the perfect infallible word of God

Canaan IS Phoenicia

Merely Phoenicia is the Greek name for purple while Canaan is the Semetic name for purple.

>I read wikipedia instead of books

>Israelites
>ethnically Canaanites

Ignore that retard. He obviously has never studied ancient Near Eastern history.

>bolschewikipedia
Had me baited until now

I SPOUT BULLSHIT WITHOUT SOURCES INSTEAD OF BOOKS!

>8th millennium BC
The earth didn't exist yet

>500-1000 years before they were written

Nope

>There is no such gap

t. never opened a book about Biblical/Ancient Near East Archeology

>They are still talked about today
>That means they must have been the most powerful at that time!

So if knowledge or ruins of a kingdom or an event doesn't survive to the present day, then that event or kingdom must have been irrelevant or less powerful then their more well known neighbours?

Do you realise how stupid that sounds? It sounds like the type of argument a ten year old would make.

>t. never opened a book about Biblical/Ancient Near East Archeology

You are a compelte clueless retard

Stop pretending you have read anything on the subject, EGYPTIANS DID NOT STOP WRITING, they wrote less it's true but documents didn't vanish into thin air

so much butthurt in this thread

>It sounds like the type of argument a ten year old would make.
This is why children shouldn't be allowed on the internet till their 18.

More like until 25.

For you cuck

Now call me daddy and apologize

>WHEN ISRAEL WAS A CHILD

Yes, and?

What book is this?

Have a (You)

From Stone Age to Christianity : Monotheism and the Historical Process of William Foxwell Albright

Biblical "history" is a joke

Atheism is a joke

Archeology constantly BTFO your cucked ideology

>Be Atheicuck
>Claim that Sargon doesn't exist
>Find Sargon Stele
>Claim that Ur doesn't exist
>Find Ur
>Claim that Israel were Canaanites
>Find Merneptah Stele
>Claim that David and Salomon never existed
>Find Tel Dan Stele
>Claim that the House of Omri never existed
>Find Mesha Stele
>And so on

If it weren't for the fact that you dominate the West using sheer political power, the mass would be aware of the Truthness of the Bible and convert

And where is the God Stele? There is none, therefore god doesn't existed.
Kek, why are theists so cucked and stupid? lol

This must be a false flag
I refuse to believe anyone is this stupid

WE

>Athiest
>Claim that Sargon doesn't exist
who or what are you talking about?

It took people months to cross the Mediterranean back then. So many got lost and died that sea travel was off-limits for all but the most advanced civilizations

I can't believe you fools don't see the big blue sea and shudder

Wilusa looks really distorted here

>mons

Make it years, and we're talking from greece to egypt

In the early XIXth century, when the Biblical Archeology wasn't very advanced the Atheists basically claimed that the Bible invented numerous Monarchs(Sargon being one of them) and cities and was merely myths, then, the Christians started to dig out the ancient civilization of Akkad, Sumer, Assyria, and Babylon to refute them.

Since they got BTFO using Archeology they were forced to quit the field of Archeology and attacked the Bible using Textual "Criticism". They invented the Documentary Hypothesis which collapsed not too long ago BTFOing them again in the process.

The Documentary Hypothesis collapsed mainly because of pic related.

>Jesus isn't a historical character meme

And Muhammad never subjugated the Arabs either.

This. Sea peoples only exist in myths.

What's so bad about Wikipedia?

yea because an entire ideology is centered around historical authenticity of jewish towns and kings. thats like proving that the homeless guys down the street was definitely a veteran in vietnam therefore all his imaginary friends MUST be real too.