FatherMithras

I also would like to clear something up. Helo, you are not an expert in anceint warfare anymore than I am. Your profile says your 18, and I'm 20. I've had classes in ancient warfare tactics and also studied on it exclusively for a decent amount of time. Regardless, the experts evidence trumps our own and since we're not the leading professionals...

Helo

It bugs the crap out of me when someone wants to bring age into a discussion. If you can understand the materials, age does not matter.

I can understand things just as clearly as you can.

And no Im not an expert but this is something I DO have some serious know about. My first foray into that field was getting a book about the Roman army when I was 8 and Ive been studying since then

FatherMithras

I brought it up for one reason. To show that neither of us, despite considerable study, are experts enough to come to our own conclusions in a field that experts take years and years of advanced learning to make conclusions. Thus we should trust the experts.

On a side note... You like the Roman military? Me too. I love the Greek and Roman military structures and that's one of the reasons I chose the name of a military god, with the leadership title as my name. Sol Invictus.

Gawen

Ok. Somewhere between 1279 and 1234, right?

Apparently, the Hyksos were finally driven out during the 16th and 17th Dynasties and finally at the end of the 17th Dynasty of the Second Intermediate Period (1786 to 1575 BCE). You're at least 340 years off. At this time, the Egyptians did not use chariots. It is the Hyksos that introduced the chariot to the Egyptians. The Egyptians didn't use the chariot in force until the beginning of the 18th Dynasty.

As for chariots, you don't seem to know much about mobile warfare. The chariots were used to hurl arrows and javelins giving support to the infantry. They did not clash directly with the enemy.
Egyptian army had 4 divisions of infantry of 5000 soldiers each. The army by Tutmose III had several thousand chariots. This is still a couple hundred years before your time frame.
Let's assume Pharoah had 250-300 chariots to persue the Hebrews. That's one quarter of the chariots PER Division. And this number does not include the several hundred chariots of his personal guard. With a chain of supply and mobile artillery persuing a couple hundred thousand basically unarmed and out of supply Hebrews, the Hebrews had no chance. Of course it would take time and a buttload of arrows. Eventually the Hebrews would have surrendered.

No wonder they needed a pillar of fire and water to save them. The time frames do not match up. The Hyksos scenario does not match up. And the entire biblical story is simply ludicrous.

FatherMithras

^^^^ Why I pointed out relative youth an inexperience can lead to embarassing errors.

ChipGuy

Did anyone see a documentary called "Decoding the Exodus" that was on the discovery channel a little while back? It was two hours of "proofs" of the exodus.

First it accused scientists of having a pre-conceived notion that the exodus never happened, and then purposely distorting evidence to support their ideas. Then went on to claim that the Hebrews were really the Hyksos, that all the plagues were the result of a huge volcano (sry, can't remember the name), including the parting of the red sea. I bet nobody here knew that it was a tsunami from the initial volcano that caused the plagues that took out the Egyptians

Then they went on to locate "the true" mount Sinai because what other mountain would have evidence of a spring on it?

What made me laugh was this same style of argument repeated ad nauseum...

Narrator: "...If this is true, then Pharoh Ahmose's son would also have died young with all the other firstborn"
Expert: "Yeah, he died young, but that doesn't mea.."[cut]
Narrator (in awe): "So these are the actual bones of one of the victims of the plagues sent from God."

Ok, that was a strawman...but it was pretty bad.

sismofyt

not only do we have egyptian records from the whole 'biblical' period. we have a load of other records, namely form the great empires of assyria and babylon (depending on who was running mesopotamia at the time). they only talkabout the hebrews / isralittes when the defeated them or deported them. in fact one of the first mentions of isral and the house of omri is on a stele were they, the hebrews. pay tribute to the mesopotamian ruler. now, those rulers LOVED to brag about their warfares. they often lied, or bended the truth, about their victories, but if the israel nation indeed was so big as we are lead to believe from the bible they would have said so without doubt. they never did. they regarded the hebrews as a petty people with (a) petty god(s) that was easy to mock around. in fact the more or less completely moved isral to babylon and it's surrounding country. and thus the hebrews created much of the ot as we know it in years 700-500 bce

the hebrews where a small insignificant nation compared to giants of egypt and babylon / assyria. they never contributed to anything in that region, never build anything, never wrote anything (besides documents that ended up in the ot, significant for a lot of people today yes, but not back then) they didn't bring anything cultural important to the region as such) .. in short you can compare the times to our great cold war from the late 40's to the late 80', with egypt being usa and assyria / babaylon being russia.. israel would be the equivalent to, say belgium (no offence, my belgian friends )

no wonder they had to hold onto those documents and and create a vast mythology based on pure lies about their past. and as you pointed out helo, monotheism, which is generally thought of being the hebrews greatest 'achievement' wasn't even their own idea, they were envious like hell, and stole the mesopotamian (flood) mythology as well

they were nothing back then, nothing at all

sismofyt

belgium may be too much even. pharao islands (pardon the pun) or monaco might be better

QRUEL

thanks for broadening my scope of knowledge on the issue. I guess that's how Helo would have known to quote that example...because if it wasn't for the evidence stated above, then the original info would never have surfaced

sismofyt

egyptian and mesopotamian records have been studied intensively the last hundred years or more. there are tons of books out there. the assyrians and babylonians left hundreds of thousands of practially undestructable clay tablets. we can read most of them and there are many monuments like the omri stele and the hammurabi stele with it's 282 commands. the stuff in the ot pales compared to those. they all provide massive information and evidence about those ancient times. and they mostly back each others up. it's the ot stuff that doesn't. sure it gets a name or two right, but it's all one grand fairy tale to make them the right owneers of a piece of land in the ME. the ot is a political document, a manifest