Archaeologica.org

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.pr ... nt=5019042

Archaeologists Debunk 3,000-year-old Fake News: The Hyksos Didn’t Invade Ancient Egypt

Study of human remains found in Hyksos capital Avaris suggests that century of their rule over Nile Delta was not the result of conquest but rise to power of longtime immigrants from the Levant

One of the more compelling arguments I'd seen was that the Hyksos were brought in as mercenaries and given their utilization of chariots and compound bows there is still much to support that idea. Those weapons were revolutionary to Egypt when introduced.

As a cohesive mercenary group they were in a unique position to grab power when the opportunity presented itself. Or, perhaps they simply were not paid on time?

For workers, yes.

Of course this was long before coinage was invented.

A lot of so called invasions stretch the term. Did the Beaker people "invade" Britain? There is now a well established argument that there was no Anglo-saxon invasion of Post Roman Britain. And what scale denotes an invasion? The Arab armies which are supposed to have single handedly conquered all the near east including Spain (and then apparently repopulated it - how they got on their horses afterwards beggars belief) were miniscule.

A central prob is that history as a study only emerged in the 18th 19th centuries, before then the past was largely what the powers that be made it.

I must agree Simon. I've always doubted the numbers reported by ancient historians. Particularly the opposition that they reported they faced. The infrastructure to support vast armies did not exist.

Exactly - my personal opinion is that if we went back and actually saw some seminal events we might well be surprised at the numbers involved and the amount of exaggeration.

One is reminded of Lincoln when asked by the Times how many Confederate troops did he estimate were in the field? He replied something like a million. When the reporter said surely this was impossible he said he was going by the reports he received from his commanders when they failed their objectives.

In the 4th and 3d centuries BC the Romans habitually raised 4 legions every year. Each legion was about 4,000 men and two were assigned to each consul. Adding in some cavalry (Romans were not great horsemen ) and skirmishers each army would have amounted to less than 10,000 men.
Because of their policy of assimilating defeated Italian peoples rather than slaughtering or enslaving them the Romans had a tremendous manpower pool to draw from.

One does have to wonder what towns which were not as enlightened could muster in their own defense?