How was Egypt before the arrival of Hyksos?

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,877
#31
Is this a trend here, or did people always do it . I have noticed it more and more lately, it seems to come from people that either have some problem with the people of culture in question. It arises mostly when we compare older cultures (like Australian Aboriginals ) or other prehistory periods ;

" They didnt have proper agriculture ..... there was no complex trade ..... they didnt do x y z 'as we do now' ...... there was no real communication ..... "

:rolleyes:
Thank you!
I have noticed this trend, not just in history, but in many things lately. Film analysis and criticism (or TV episodes, etc...). Not exactly the same modifiers, but that they use some form of comparative analysis to determine how close something is to their idea of how it ought to be. The reviewer frames the "proper" way of how a film plot should be done with the themes in question: then judges said film as worse based on how far it deviates from that hypothetical framing. Not the same thing, but similar to the comparative analysis of history in abstract terms meant to mean something concrete. In both cases, the observer fails to properly assess the items based on their own merits.

I am not sure what to call this general trend: "Millennial Post-post-modernism" or something like that? I hate to throw millennials as a whole under the bus (since many don't think in those terms), but this trend seems to come out of that generation. Millennials weren't the first to do this sort of thing, it's part of the trait of modernism to judge the past as "primitive" and the future as more advanced, but we learned long ago that things weren't nearly that simple: and even modernists didn't judge actual things based on hypotheticals, but rather allowed the actual things to destroy the hypothesis - rather than impose it.
 
Mar 2018
748
UK
#32
Thank you!
I have noticed this trend, not just in history, but in many things lately. Film analysis and criticism (or TV episodes, etc...). Not exactly the same modifiers, but that they use some form of comparative analysis to determine how close something is to their idea of how it ought to be. The reviewer frames the "proper" way of how a film plot should be done with the themes in question: then judges said film as worse based on how far it deviates from that hypothetical framing. Not the same thing, but similar to the comparative analysis of history in abstract terms meant to mean something concrete. In both cases, the observer fails to properly assess the items based on their own merits.

I am not sure what to call this general trend: "Millennial Post-post-modernism" or something like that? I hate to throw millennials as a whole under the bus (since many don't think in those terms), but this trend seems to come out of that generation. Millennials weren't the first to do this sort of thing, it's part of the trait of modernism to judge the past as "primitive" and the future as more advanced, but we learned long ago that things weren't nearly that simple: and even modernists didn't judge actual things based on hypotheticals, but rather allowed the actual things to destroy the hypothesis - rather than impose it.
It's called "no true scotsman" fallacy. It's been around forever, and I really doubt it's on the increase. Possibly you've only recently become good at spotting it however.
 
Likes: Theodoric
Jun 2012
7,401
Malaysia
#34
Yep, an very biased vision (more mythical than a realist depiction of what really was Egypt)
You seem to know so much already about this so called 'primitiveness' of pre-Hyksos Egypt. In fact you would know everything, judging by the tone of your first question and your later comments. So, it's kind of like, what is really your deal, dude. Or maybe you're a descendant of Khamudi or something.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,820
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#35
Let's not feed the troll. Even pupils in elementary schools know that Egypt was already Egypt before of the arrival of the Hyksos [a part horses and war chariots ... and may be some agricultural techniques].
 
Aug 2014
4,669
Australia
#37
Let's not feed the troll. Even pupils in elementary schools know that Egypt was already Egypt before of the arrival of the Hyksos [a part horses and war chariots ... and may be some agricultural techniques].
The terms used in Egyptian documents suggest that they had horses and chariots before the Hyksos.
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,820
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#38
The terms used in Egyptian documents suggest that they had horses and chariots before the Hyksos.
As for I can know they had some horses, but they used them rarely and overall for "sport" purposes [not in war, they used donkeys as means of transports and soldiers walked]. Chariots? Sure not war chariots. So probably I had to be more explanatory and accurate. Anyway historically Egyptians didn't like to ride horses [depictions of Ancient Egyptians riding horses, even after the Hyksos introduced their military usage] were really rare [and they did this as sport or to carry order through the battle field, like at Qadesh].
 
Aug 2018
137
America
#39
Egypt was the ' cradle of civilization '
No, no it wasn't. At best, it's one of them, and even that is tenuous. Indo-Europeans, for example had terminology for architecture and seafaring some 2,000 years before the first identifiable Egyptian state emerged, while the predecessors of the Austronesians were already reaching remote areas of Melanesia. Even writing should not be attributed to the Egyptians. Forms of proto-writing appeared in Europe and China about two or even three thousand years before Egypt.

We only think of Egypt that way because of Europeans of the Renaissance, though especially of the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Hegel, the most influential philosopher of history ever, places the start of world history with Persia, but still says that it was Egypt who has the pride of place in Persian history, meaning Egypt is the true beginning, this being the reason why we think of Egypt (and Mesopotamia to a lesser extent) as said "cradle".
 
Aug 2014
4,669
Australia
#40
As for I can know they had some horses, but they used them rarely and overall for "sport" purposes [not in war, they used donkeys as means of transports and soldiers walked]. Chariots? Sure not war chariots. So probably I had to be more explanatory and accurate. Anyway historically Egyptians didn't like to ride horses [depictions of Ancient Egyptians riding horses, even after the Hyksos introduced their military usage] were really rare [and they did this as sport or to carry order through the battle field, like at Qadesh].
None of the elite liked to ride horses in that part of the world. Best explanation I can come up with based on correspondence at the time is that there was some kind of stigma associated with it.