The popular image we see when the media addresses Ancient Egypt is that of Egyptian slave masters whipping their Hebrew slaves into submission in order to build a pyramid, thanks to the popular movie “The Ten Commandments”. However, historical as well as Anthropological evidence shows this to be false. Furthermore, the Hebrews were part of a larger ethnic group called Semites.
Their ethnic neighbor, the Hyksos, “invaded” Egypt circa 1720 BCE. I will use the following pages to explain the “invasion”, how the Egyptians eventually revolted and secured control of their country again, and what technologies played a part on their victory.
Egypt had no standing army and was too concerned with civil projects to see the invasion coming. Under pharaohs of the 13th dynasty, Egypt flourished. She was expanding ever greater and all peoples, regardless of nationality wanted into the gem of the Ancient world. Around 1720 BCE a race of Shepard-farmers called the Hyksos were steadily entering the country. Egypt at that time possessed no standing army, thus she had no way to fight back the “invasion” even if she saw it coming.
Eventually, when their numbers became so great, a man among them, Salitis, decided to wrest control of this country {Egypt] from its current rulers. Flavius Josephus [who claimed to have read the historian Manetho] claimed the invasion took place like this:
"By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow; and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of gods...Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis."
Could the “invasion” have taken place like this? Yes, it could very well have. However it should be noted, that the Hyksos never fully controlled the country. There were still competing Egyptian dynasties, centered in Thebes that controlled Upper Egypt, while the Hyskos controlled Lower [Northern] Egypt.
The Hyksos were able to conquer Egypt with little bloodshed. They were able to do this because of two very important technological advancements. The Hyksos employed mobile firing platforms, also known as chariots. This allowed them to protect and mobilize their archers, giving them a fighting chance of retreating if the infantry should fold. The chariots employed by the Hyksos also gave them impeccable scouting capabilities. In Egypt, before the chariot, a man would have to walk the distance himself, in a dessert climate. With this new piece of technology, he could cover more distances in a shorter amount of time.
However, there is a downside to the chariot. It increases the amount of resources a commander needs to expend. Before the chariot, the field commander only needed to worry about feeding and lodging his troops in the field. Now, having this innovation, he needed to feed and lodge not only the troops, but also whatever means he would use to pull the chariot itself.
The other major technological advantage the Hyksos brought with them is the composite bow. Before the “invasion of the Hyksos, Egyptian bows were weak and snapped easily. With the advent of the composite bow, Egyptian bows become much stronger and gave them much better range. As a tangent, each year the pharaoh [in later dynasties] would put an arrow through a piece of solid bronze using a composite bow.
These two inventions changed Egypt fundamentally, after Kamose and Ahmose were able to expel the invaders. Successive Pharaohs redesigned Egypt's military from the ground up to reflect the changing times. Pharaohs realized that to keep their place on the “international” stage of the time, they would be wise to draft an army and train it well. The mountainous natural boarders were simply not effective anymore. It was under Thutmosis III [ruled from 1479-1425 BCE] that a professional, standing army was established and maintained. By the time of the battle of Kadesh [c. 1279 BCE] it was clear that she had learned her lesson.
One must keep in mind that the Hyksos were nomadic peoples that came into Egypt from Syria and Canaan. They came into the country [of Egypt], as it was a magnet, attracting all peoples with its vast wealth. The problem was they became too large in number to effectively control. Coup-le that with internal Egyptian weakness and you have a recipe for conquest.
However, the Hyksos faced the same problems Rome did when it fell... the technology gap. When the campaign first started, the gap was very wide. Egypt's army was no match in comparison to the Hyksos variant. Slowly however, the gap began to close as one might assume Hyksos soldiers defected or were captured and the secrets of their success could be learned for the Egyptians. More to the point, the very weapons the Hyksos used to conquer the Egyptians became their defeat.
I believe the Hyksos were not able to maintain effective control over Egypt because they were limited by the fact that they did not control territory of their own. They were, in essence, a nation less state. They had little experience in nation building and administration. A comparison could be seen later by the Carthaginian general Hannibal. He was great at winning a victory however; he lacked the tactical mind to exploit his victory. The Hyksos maintained control over Egypt only so long as the Egyptians would let them. Furthermore, the Hyksos really had no long-term plans for the country they conquered.
They only saw the short-term goal of having conquered it. However, one must not leave out the good side of the Hyksos invasion and subsequent conquering. Hyksos kings set about saving various works of Egyptian literature. Historians have credited them with saving many valuable works of Egyptian culture that may have been lost in the sands of history, which gives us an insight into the Egyptian world.
Overall, the Hyksos came around as a catalyst needed to change Egypt when she needed it most. Egypt was propelled to her place among the great empires of that time. She no longer was considered easy pickings. For thousands of years Egyptian kings had concerned themselves with improving the culture, leaving the military chips to fall where they may. After the Hyksos invasion, Egypt would become a militaristic culture marked by strong warrior-kings such as Thutmosis III or Rameses II.
The New kingdom would see the greatest extent of Egyptian control. Canaan and Syria in the North to Nubia [along the fourth and fifth cataracts] in the south would pledge allegiance to an Egyptian master.
