WI David conquered Egypt

[Hearkener]

But history isn't science

History is most definitely a science. English tends to only use the term "science" for the natural sciences (Physics, Chemistry and Biology), but the humanities are sciences in their own right too.

And history has a very well developed scientific methology behind it that you can't just ignore because you dislike the results it gives you.

Khirbet en-Nahas and Timna, Khirbet Qeiyafa

Timna was an Egyptian and then an Edomite mine; there is little evidence that any "Israelite" state ever used the site. Khirbet Qeiyafa is a mess, and as Fantalkin and Finkelstein remark, the scientific work done on the sight was biased, sensationalist and angling for Biblical literalism. Khirbet en-Nahas is a much stronger piece of evidence, but unfortunately there is no reason to associate it with Israel over the local Edomites, whom we know were capable of sustaining such operations from the Timna site.

 

[Infinite-Monkeys]

Okay leaving aside was David historical tangent .


If David existed as effectively a warlord king with his powerbase centred around Jerusalem, There are cases in the period of effectively a warlord chaining victories together and sweeping of in a time of crisis taking a more developed neighbour , so lets assume they pull this of in Egypt (not knowing David's precise date help with this could pick a time of crisis for Egypt in about the right era).

Im not so convinced they would just assimilate as some others assume.

Egypt was as much a theocracy as a monarchy with the Pharaohs role as basically high priest very key and much if his legitimation coming from his religious role, while this could work fine with the right type of polytheist invader (see the greeks) even if the concept of monotheism is a bit less solid back then the proto-Israelites have a very different more monothetic religion and with the king again likely having a very theological basis to his rule. I expect this means the house of David stays a foreign ruler, and can’t assimilate.

Longer term I suspect that gives one of two scenarios

A they try and hold the whole thing fairly soon a weak period/ruler, sees the local elite potentially backed by a different foreign power more amenable to Egyptian culture/religion manage to overthrow/push back the house of David. A lot of Israelite soldiers (not to mention royals themselves) likely die in the process impacting the stability of the proto-Israel

B I could see a state focused around Jerusalem hold effectively the tip of lower Egypt (so basically the wealthy northern coast), by building a big navy and focusing on moving colionists in to focused/strategic areas (funding an Alexandria equivalent). So instead perhaps the house of David realises it can’t digest everything, expands the concept of its natural land in the north of Egypt (which would of course massively chnage the narrative around exodus as it forms, possibly claiming the land taken in the north is recompense for slavery/exile ), and you see a slow merging of both the religion and culture of the locals and colonists to the point where it can be really compatible with the Jerusalem core, and the rest (upper Egypt plus some of former lower) is set up as a vassal/client under a compliant local (which i expect gets independence during a weak period of the proto Israel)

 

[Silver01]

History is most definitely a science. English tends to only use the term "science" for the natural sciences (Physics, Chemistry and Biology), but the humanities are sciences in their own right too.

I'm going to quote tim o neill on this

"In the hard sciences because of some well-established laws of cause and effect that form a basis for this kind of induction. If something is affecting the mice in my examples above today, it will affect them in the same way tomorrow, all things being equal. This allows a scientist to work from induction to make an assessment of probable causation via empirical assessment and do so with a high degree of confidence. And their assessment can be confirmed by others because the empirical measures are controlled and repeatable.

Unfortunately, none of this works for the study of the past. Events, large and small, occur and then are gone. A historian can only assess information about them from traces they may, if we are lucky, leave behind. But unlike a researcher from the hard sciences, a historian can't run the fall of the Western Roman Empire through a series of controlled lab experiments. He can't even observe the events, as a zoologist might observe the behavior of a gorilla band, and draw conclusions. And there aren't well-defined laws and principles at work (apart from in a very broad and subjective sense) that allow him to, say, simulate the effects of the rise of the printing press or decide on the exact course of the downfall of Napoleon the way a theoretical physicist can with the composition of a distant galaxy or the formation of a long dead star"

And history has a very well developed scientific methology behind it that you can't just ignore because you dislike the results it gives you

History has a well developed methodology? Yes is it scientific? No to claim that it is or it must follow it shows to again quote tim o neill historically illiteracy History isn't a science nor does it use the same method

 

[Hearkener]

In the hard sciences because of some well-established laws of cause and effect that form a basis for this kind of induction. If something is affecting the mice in my examples above today, it will affect them in the same way tomorrow, all things being equal. This allows a scientist to work from induction to make an assessment of probable causation via empirical assessment and do so with a high degree of confidence. And their assessment can be confirmed by others because the empirical measures are controlled and repeatable.

You do realize that history is bound by the same laws of cause and effect that apply to everything else, right?

Unfortunately, none of this works for the study of the past. Events, large and small, occur and then are gone. A historian can only assess information about them from traces they may, if we are lucky, leave behind.

Somehow these traces do not comprise a set of empirical measures I guess. Even though this data is 100% controlled and repeatable: you can do the same historical analysis on the same source the same way a hundred trillion times and always get the same results without deviation. Of course, changing your method of analysis will change the outcome, but this is true of all experiments.

By his logic, Paleontology is not a science, and neither is most of Astrophysics and Quantum Dynamics.

But unlike a researcher from the hard sciences, a historian can't run the fall of the Western Roman Empire through a series of controlled lab experiments. He can't even observe the events, as a zoologist might observe the behavior of a gorilla band, and draw conclusions.

Arguing that a theory is not falsifiable because you can't run an experiment on it is nonsense. We can no more repeat the formation of a star in an experiment than we can repeat the fall of the Roman Empire.

Observing the past is evidently possible, as anyone even vaguely familiar with the concept of forensics can attest to.

And there aren't well-defined laws and principles at work (apart from in a very broad and subjective sense) that allow him to, say, simulate the effects of the rise of the printing press or decide on the exact course of the downfall of Napoleon the way a theoretical physicist can with the composition of a distant galaxy or the formation of a long dead star"

The problem with historical simulation is complexity. Human societies are orders of magnitude more complex than any physical process ever and our math is just not up to the task of simulating them accurately. But that doesn't mean that it's laws and principles aren't well defined.

People like O'Neill just end up owning themselves publically, and showing the whole world why a humanistic education is an indispensable part of a scientific career. They don't really understand the problem they're talking about and have never learned to solve problems they can't beat to death with brute-force mathematics.

 

[jacob ningen]

You do realize that history is bound by the same laws of cause and effect that apply to everything else, right?

Somehow these traces do not comprise a set of empirical measures I guess. Even though this data is 100% controlled and repeatable: you can do the same historical analysis on the same source the same way a hundred trillion times and always get the same results without deviation. Of course, changing your method of analysis will change the outcome, but this is true of all experiments.

By his logic, Paleontology is not a science, and neither is most of Astrophysics and Quantum Dynamics.

nor political science because there is no IRB way to control Hunt's resource theory, Skocpols theory of marginal elites, Linz's presidentialism vs parliamentarism, polling outsid the game framework Dr. Andrews at Uconn uses. or Math. Or historical linguistics. With the odd exception of NSL Martha's Vineyard Milton Keynes and Hittite phargyneals showing schliecher's prediction of h_1,h_2,h_3 were right.

Arguing that a theory is not falsifiable because you can't run an experiment on it is nonsense. We can no more repeat the formation of a star in an experiment than we can repeat the fall of the Roman Empire.

Quine-Duhem and Kuhn-Lakatos-Ladau argue that no one actually uses Popper's criterion anymore. Quine Duhem because there is no way to exhaust all hypotheses and testing holism Kuhn from unleashing the word Paradigm on the world and attacked Whiggishism and Lakatos

 

[Hearkener]

Or historical linguistics. With the odd exception of NSL Martha's Vineyard Milton Keynes and Hittite phargyneals showing schliecher's prediction of h_1,h_2,h_3 were right.

I mean we Assyriologists and the Egyptologists before us have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that historical data can be empirically assessed by reconstructing languages like Akkadian, Egyptian and Hittite in a way that are as controlled and repeatable as any basic chemical reaction.

O'Neill, by the by, is guilty of what Popper describes as:

"an approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is their primary aim, and which assumes that this aim is attainable by discovering the 'rhythms' or the 'patterns', the 'laws' or the 'trends' that underlie the evolution of history".[11] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism#Karl_Popper, acc. 18.01.2024

 

[jacob ningen]

I mean we Assyriologists and the Egyptologists before us have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that historical data can be empirically assessed by reconstructing languages like Akkadian, Egyptian and Hittite in a way that are as controlled and repeatable as any basic chemical reaction.

O'Neill, by the by, is guilty of what Popper describes as:

His major contribution is reminding people as Feyerabend and Van Fraasen before him and Spencer Mcdaniel after him that while the church is bad most of the Protestant claims of the Victorian era are bunk. and Spencer has the advantage as a classisicist, she has enough humanities not to fall into the same trap as him.

 

[Silver01]

You do realize that history is bound by the same laws of cause and effect that apply to everything else, right

Oh yeah? So I can repeat the exact conditions of the battle of Waterloo to get the exact same results? Like I do with bacterial analysis in a lab?

Somehow these traces do not comprise a set of empirical measures I guess.

It doesn't history is based on what's more likely it's based on evidence yes but it's not science history is based on a way different criteria on what's more likely based on the limited sources and other evidence we do have

Even though this data is 100% controlled and repeatable: you can do the same historical analysis on the same source the same way a hundred trillion times and always get the same results without deviation. Of course, changing your method of analysis will change the outcome, but this is true of all experiments.

You just confirmed that the data is not 100% controlled or repeatable, different theories try to explain events in history also I will quote tim again

"Just because history is not a hard science does not mean it can't tell us about the past or can't do so with a degree of certainty. Early historians like Herodotus established the beginnings of the methods used by modern historical researchers, though historians only began to develop a systematic methodology based on agreed principles from the later eighteenth century onwards...But the key thing to understand here is that the historian is not working toward an absolute statement about what definitely happened in the past, since that is generally impossible except on trivial points"

By his logic, Paleontology is not a science,

Yeah no the historical method and what paleontologist use are very different while paleontology required guess work paleontology is more rooted upon scientific analysis of the bones anatomy, of preserved fossils and living specimens .

Arguing that a theory is not falsifiable because you can't run an experiment on it is nonsense. We can no more repeat the formation of a star in an experiment than we can repeat the fall of the Roman Empire

Except o neill never says that he says science runs on particular methods a biologist on a lab can run an experiment to know specific conditions to know why a biological process occurs via observation and repetition, also we do know how stars are formed and also we have picture evidence of space gas and dust and also all the research of fission and fusion do we have that for the roman empire we don't .

Observing the past is evidently possible, as anyone even vaguely familiar with the concept of forensics can attest to.

It's for the most part except with recent events imposible to fully observe the past?
Did Heraclius defeat the Persians in 622? No evidence for it except sources
Did emperor Nero die by suicide ? Who knows

Did Inca Tupac Yupanqui go in a pacific adventure depends on the chronicle you read

Did Paul write in the mid first century well we have no scientific proof of it just the source analysis

And we see how in some cases we got nothing but literally sources which while helpful analysis of said sources isn't something scientific.

The problem with historical simulation is complexity. Human societies are orders of magnitude more complex than any physical process ever and our math is just not up to the task of simulating them accurately. But that doesn't mean that it's laws and principles aren't well defined.

No the problem is unknown because sources are faulty and even silent on many issues it you ran a computer of minute details about history you would get something radically different because people are affected by a lot so as of know and I think never we can't do historical simulation.

A good example would be historical battles even if you simulate the details you will likely not get same results.

People like O'Neill just end up owning themselves publically, and showing the whole world why a humanistic education is an indispensable part of a scientific career

And he never said it was it would I think the humanities are great to a scientific career because there not history and give a good outlook and non scientific knowledge but yeah history is no more a science than philosophy is .

In fact I'm going to argue against your view that you are the one that is reducing the humanities because to you it seems it has to be scientific in order to be valid, history even if not scientific is of great value we don't have to make it something is not

 

[Silver01]

O'Neill, by the by, is guilty of what Popper describes as

How is tim guilty of predicting or rhythms' or the 'patterns' when the man is arguing you can't do that in history also Tim is a historian not a scientist so I don't know why in your other comment you said this "can't beat to death with brute-force mathematics."

He is arguing as historian that history isn't a science based on the context of some dumb people claiming that certain events didn't occur because there is no scientific proof of it which a criteria that invalidates almost every thing in history given we rarely if ever get definitive proof of something

 

[Carlos I de Quito]

Please, enough debate about that, let's do something, let's say that in another reality of the multiverse, if the Biblical David exists and conquers Egypt, how would he do it? What would I do next?

 

[Avrorrange]

Please, enough debate about that, let's do something, let's say that in another reality of the multiverse, if the Biblical David exists and conquers Egypt, how would he do it? What would I do next?

Would that not belong in ASB?

 

[jacob ningen]

Would that not belong in ASB?

probably

 

[jacob ningen]

Would that not belong in ASB?

another thing is assuming Henotheism not monotheism the Israelite Kingdom would quickly become a new dynasty of pharaohs. Considering David being from what to the Egyptians was a small town in the outskirts of the Egyptian Empire it would be a harder sell of Henotheism than akhenaten so even if Judaism isnt yet monotheistic it must either become strict no other deities exist or Egyptian polytheism+the Abrahamic deity like OTL Yeb. Three factors are at play here the Tanach's Egyptian history errors not flying in egypt till the Hellenistic era OTL causing hey we don't remember that, Egyptian religious conservatism and demographics or David wank

 

[Lalli]

Please, enough debate about that, let's do something, let's say that in another reality of the multiverse, if the Biblical David exists and conquers Egypt, how would he do it? What would I do next?

Even if that Biblical David and his kingdom were exist, there is not way how he could conquer Egypt. Israel would be in bad position doing that. Too many enemies around, not enough of men simultanously conquer Egypt and defend Israel against neighboring tribes. And probably there was already some tribal rivalry anyway inside Israelites. And why he even would want to do that?

Would that not belong in ASB?

Depends would it involve magic or not.

 

[Aluma]

Would that not belong in ASB?

As in literal Chosen One by God to be King of Israel, the ruler and unifier of the divinely Chosen People? Definitely

A hypothetical scenario where the political structure described in the Bible - the United Kingdom of the Twelve Tribes under an Absolutist King that fully embraced Yahwism and rejects other gods at sword point Monotheism-style and has a large enough population to form armies of hundreds of thousands men like a Rome came early?

Not ASB, but highly implausible following modern archeology unless you create a timeline where the specific conditions for a highly populous hebrew kingdom capable of forming something analogous to Egypt's New Kingdom are met and in that case this hypothetical empire would likely follow the same route of the assyrians, babylonians and persians in their wake, unless you really want to give them so much good plot armor that the Abrahamic God might as well be hyping them, in which case you'd have them pull a Rashidun Caliphate and become the levantine equivalent of the Roman Empire

But at that point you could do the same for the Ammonites, Moabites, Philistines(who for all we know might have been greeks gone canaanite, which is quite interesting honestly)... You get the point

Though Israel has the sightly advantage over them that we know a bit more about them through their religious texts but thats really it

 

[Andristan]

Philistines(who for all we know might have been greeks gone canaanite

I do like this theory, the evidence is slim but plausible. The linguistic evidence from the similarity of the egyptian word for the philistines and their word for cyprus (keftim IIRC), the similar pottery ware types, various suggestions of links with the Sea Peoples from Ramesses III time, are very encouraging to the theory.

 

[Zireael]

If the Biblical David exists and conquers Egypt, how would he do it? What would I do next?

Same way the Hyksos did it, would be my suggestion

 

[jacob ningen]

I do like this theory, the evidence is slim but plausible. The linguistic evidence from the similarity of the egyptian word for the philistines and their word for cyprus (keftim IIRC), the similar pottery ware types, various suggestions of links with the Sea Peoples from Ramesses III time, are very encouraging to the theory.

theres also the entry of the narrative form of the annals taking a decidedly Oedipal turn in Samuel and Kings but given Sophocles doesnt exist for another 500-600 years this could be coincidental same for Samson-melqart-Heracles and the Agammemnon-Yiftach-Abraham that Soren Kierkegaard noticed.(IE one reason the Akedah is in Fear and Trembling is to compare Abraham whos action was a pure leap of teleological elpis with Yiftach's transactionalism later seen in many Grimm Marchen and Agammemnon's appeasing Artemis to sail to troy within this triad there are subgroups Yiftach and agammenon are transactional and in service to a war cult, Agammemnon is the only greek, Yiftach is the only one not to lie to the sacrificial child Agammemnon disguises it as a marriage to achilles, and Abraham said the Lord will provide a sheep, both Isaac and Iphigenia are spared by divine intervention an angel in Isaac's case Artemis in Iphigenia's)

 

[Andristan]

Agammemnon-Yiftach-Abraham

This association kinda ignores genre and context, first we have the story of Agememnon and Iphegenia from the Iliad, a epic poem, and later sources elaborating on it, then we have Jephthah and his daughter from Judges, a prose moralizing work, and lastly Abraham and Isaac from Genesis, again in a prose moralizing work. All three purport to be historical or at least concerning the actual past, all three involve child(or attempted) sacrifice, and that is mostly it for connections. Agememnon and Jephthah both swore vows, but one swore specifically about his child in recompense for a wrong, Jephthah promises to sacrifice whatever of his he sees first if he is victorious, not specific, and Abraham swears no vow at all. I am not saying that there is no connection but nothing seems to connect them besides the broadest of outlines of "man offers child to the deity."
Then we have historical context, general consensus for Homer's composition is around 800-700s BC, the book of Judges is clearly presented as a retrospective on all of its events meaning no earlier than the kingdom((s) of whatever form) of the Israelites, so circa 1000-800 BC and Abraham's story is in the middle of a collection of ancestral legends/history, though in the part that is intended to be taken historically, as opposed to the events from, say the first few chapters, and is part of the Pentatuch normally attributed to Moses, though seems clear that our editions seem to have taken final form in the royal period as well.

 

[LibPrime]

The Hyksos, who probably came from a similar background, were quickly absorbed into Egyptian culture.

So why did the native Egyptians hate the Hyksos?