I don’t understand why everyone is so obsessed about what race the Egyptians are. They most likely looked middle eastern, dark skinned but not black. But that’s just a generalization. It reality it likely depended on the era and region, southern Egyptians for example likely looked more African due to the kushites, whereas northern Egyptians may have looked more white due to the Greeks. It is ignorant to view an entire group of people as a monolith and to attribute their success to their race. The success of the Egyptians was due to their ingenuity as a people, and had nothing to do with their race, and to think otherwise is to downplay their achievements.
kuramasan yeah it was just ground up minerals copper coal etc. With watter added to make a paste it took HOURS! If you went back in time and took with you a liquid eyeliner pen you’d be the richest person in 5 kingdoms lol
Yes and the common solider only really got basic training. If you want large groups to fight, you must spend your time feeding, organizing and motivating them. The more bodies you have the more power. If you have many you can simply overwhelm your enemy. Spears and swords aren’t too hard to get the basic understandings of. Just stick them with the pointy end. Greeks however believed war was like art. A man could become a god through artful skill in war, just look at their legendary heroes. Strategy was also highly acclaimed. Ulysses was war with strategy while Achilles was war in art-like form. A man in Greek society either became a senator or a warrior or both, if he wanted to be a *somebody*. Hence why they were so terrifyingly fearsome. A solider just has basic knowledge and instinct to guide him. A Greek warrior was taught since boyhood and mastered whatever he showed a talent for, as well as learned in other warfare and strategy to boot. The gap was immense.
Not much. They were just some extra bodies. The Greeks at this time were mostly known in the region as coastal pirates, and their tactics likely reflected that. Most of the settled peoples had been beating them for years, but Egypt was pretty decrepit so they couldn't really raise an army of their own. You do realize that the rulers of Egypt prior to the Assyrian invasion were Nubian Kushites of the 25th Dynasty, right? Necho I was appointed governor of the Egyptian province after using the might of Assyria to push the Kushites out. With almost a century of Kushite rule in Lower Egypt, the new dynasty did not have a strong support base, and recruiting mercs was a option to compensate for this. People talking about the superior tactics of the Greeks don't know what the hell they're talking about. This is the 7th century BC, when the Greek phalanx was just emerging as a form of warfare. (whereas phalanxes had first appeared almost 2000 years earlier in Mesopotamia with the Sumerians) Greek mercenaries were a thing, but units were not in large enough quantity to resemble the armies of whole city-states. They would have been recruited from smaller pirate and merchant bands in the levant region, and their tactics would have been as hodgepodge as their composition. Those Greek mercenary armies were actually used to fight local princes in Lower Egypt and Libyan tribes to the west, who did not accept their new king. These were not serious state-level enemies but more like counter-insurgency. When Assyria descended into civil war in 651 BCE, Psamtik just quietly declared independence as Assyrian troops were called away. The most likely reason for Psamtik's success was that Assyria under Assurbanipal didn't really make a concerted effort to subjugate Egypt again, seeing how they were preoccupied with the civil war with Babylon. Psamtik's independence was further guaranteed because he pledged his status as a kind of ally to Assyria. In fact, when Assyria was collapsing Egypt sent various expedition northward in a last ditch attempt to save their neighbor and was there with them at the end at the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE. The remnants of Assyria, the Egyptians and their Greek mercenaries - they lost. Egypt went into terminal decline, ceasing to be a power in the region, because in the end the only claim to their resurgence was their detente and alliance with their northern neighbor. Psamtik's genius was being able to thread that needle of claiming independence while simultaneously not presenting himself as a threat. It worked for a few decades to temporarily halt Egypt's decline. This documentary has a clear nationalist bias that is really out of place in an ancient world where one's identity was more rooted in personal relations, with royalty being their own cosmopolitan group almost completely removed from the masses. Psamtik and his father owed their lives to Assyria which protected them from the invading Kushites and literally won them their kingdom. That personal history probably counted for a lot in relations between these kingdoms.
@@NeptunesLagoon Nope. The mid-7th century BCE was when the first Greek city state armies started using phalanxes. The Greeks involved in mercenary work were mostly coastal pirates and raiders and had no resemblance to the famous armies that fought Persia some 2 centuries later. Greek mercenaries occasionally fought in the armies of mesopotamia; they were a known quantity and weren't anything special. The gross misrepesentation here is a supposed Egyptian rebellion against Assyria. There really wasn't a revolt so much as Assyria just let Egypt go as Psamtik maintained extremely friendly relations with his northern neighbor throughout his reign. From the perspective of a native Egyptian like Psamtik, the Assyrian intervention had liberated his kingdom from southern Kushite usurpers and restored native rule. The man was indebted.
Here we go again. Egyptians were not white nor were they black. They were people of color yes. They were what we would consider middle easterners or Arabic people of today. They were not sub Saharan African. I am African American , our history is not history of the Egyptian people. Don’t take away their history. Most black people in America do not have Egyptian ancestors. Take a DNA test
Neanderthal Cave Becky they look Greek in this video I guess. To be fair , some Egyptians are darker than this. But some also look like that. They were described to have a range of colors just like modern day Egyptians
James Ricker I did know that ! That’s pretty cool. And a lot of the territory they ruled over had Nubian people , meaning they were technically Egyptian
James Ricker Often royals who need a bit of muscle to get the ball rolling gather a band of loyalists to their cause. Having the support of the Gods calls to people who are loyal but not willing to say it out loud. You meet in secret, most likely at the temples and get them to fund you. They become your benefactors. Their money goes to hiring the muscle you need to gain you throne. Once you have your throne and power again, you promote and praise and reward your loyalists who convince everyone else that this is the best thing for the nation. Throw a celebration for all your people and wham your Pharaoh in far more than just name.
Actor Yul Brynner established the white Ramesses II in the 1950s and even today's knowledgable film producers can't get that pharaoh look out of their heads. 😂😂😂😐
@@NeptunesLagoon nubians and kushites are the exact same people. and caucasian is a made up term that has no biological meaning. west africans are not primitives. they had civilization long before western Europe. dhar tchitt was a west african civilization from around the same time period and kerma and egypt. they had hundreds of towns and cities. timbuktu before the islamic period was 4 times larger than the city of rome and the people lived without warfare. the nok people of what is now nigeria were smelting iron and creating beautiful art long before the western Europeans were. so when you can west africans primitive and use words like caucasian, it shows how ignorant and uneducated and racist you are. im guessing you are a trump voter.
@Kimberly Combs based on DNA testing the ancient Egyptians were more related to the peoples of the Levant and Mesopotamia than sub Saharan Africans. Ancient Egypt only had one dynasty that was Black and that was the 25th dynasty which were the Kushites. Because the Kushites conquered the native Egyptians and ruled for a century from 744-656BC. Africa is a huge continent with many different peoples and tribes and because the Sahara desert being a huge barrier the peoples of North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa are so different ethnically. Back in Ancient and current times North Africa has been populated mainly by Berbers, Phoenicians, Arabs, Libyans, and other Semitic peoples. If u look at people currently living in North Africa you will notice most have Mediterranean features dark hair, olive skin, etc.
Does the Smithsonian"not receive enough private and federal funding" to Occassionally "Give" complete Documentaries to the Public? Please respond - Smithsonian
Ancient Egyptias; - Spoke african language (ref. C. Ehret). - Practiced an African culture (ref. Wallis Budge). - Were morphologically clustered with southern Africans (ref. Sonia Zakrzewski). - Had ABO typing matching that of western Saharan Haratins (ref. G Paoli). - Had a "super-negroid" body type (ref. G Robins). - Had STR markers matching predominantly southern african/great lakes/tropical west African/horn of Africa DNA clusters. Do a better job next time
I read the title as "Pharaoh's Bald Plans"
I don’t understand why everyone is so obsessed about what race the Egyptians are. They most likely looked middle eastern, dark skinned but not black. But that’s just a generalization. It reality it likely depended on the era and region, southern Egyptians for example likely looked more African due to the kushites, whereas northern Egyptians may have looked more white due to the Greeks. It is ignorant to view an entire group of people as a monolith and to attribute their success to their race. The success of the Egyptians was due to their ingenuity as a people, and had nothing to do with their race, and to think otherwise is to downplay their achievements.
DARKSKIN being that of NUBIA 🤌🏿
Egyptian is race
Egyptian is Mediterranean and south and North egypt is similar Egyptian skin from white to brown tan because sun
Many pharohs autopsy would reveal the race origin
Thumbnail....... “maybe she’s born with it..... maybe it’s Maybelline!!!” Lol
🤣 but also, I am legit impressed with how they made makeup in ancient Egypt! It was true innovation!
kuramasan yeah it was just ground up minerals copper coal etc. With watter added to make a paste it took HOURS! If you went back in time and took with you a liquid eyeliner pen you’d be the richest person in 5 kingdoms lol
Marcus W love this
FYI I’m the guy in the video I’m half Persian and am of Egyptian decent so yeah..
This. This is Pharoah Psamtik!
So ur persian and arab, roman, greek, mamulke?
Hello Pharaoh Psamtik!
Psamtik was of libyan meshwesh origin
Blasphème
How great was the skill gap between these mercenary and regular soldiers ?
Massive the Greeks were trained Warriors but more importantly they were disciplined. Greek Battle Tactics were Superior to any others at the time.
Yes and the common solider only really got basic training. If you want large groups to fight, you must spend your time feeding, organizing and motivating them. The more bodies you have the more power. If you have many you can simply overwhelm your enemy. Spears and swords aren’t too hard to get the basic understandings of. Just stick them with the pointy end.
Greeks however believed war was like art. A man could become a god through artful skill in war, just look at their legendary heroes. Strategy was also highly acclaimed. Ulysses was war with strategy while Achilles was war in art-like form. A man in Greek society either became a senator or a warrior or both, if he wanted to be a *somebody*. Hence why they were so terrifyingly fearsome. A solider just has basic knowledge and instinct to guide him. A Greek warrior was taught since boyhood and mastered whatever he showed a talent for, as well as learned in other warfare and strategy to boot.
The gap was immense.
Not much. They were just some extra bodies. The Greeks at this time were mostly known in the region as coastal pirates, and their tactics likely reflected that. Most of the settled peoples had been beating them for years, but Egypt was pretty decrepit so they couldn't really raise an army of their own. You do realize that the rulers of Egypt prior to the Assyrian invasion were Nubian Kushites of the 25th Dynasty, right? Necho I was appointed governor of the Egyptian province after using the might of Assyria to push the Kushites out. With almost a century of Kushite rule in Lower Egypt, the new dynasty did not have a strong support base, and recruiting mercs was a option to compensate for this.
People talking about the superior tactics of the Greeks don't know what the hell they're talking about. This is the 7th century BC, when the Greek phalanx was just emerging as a form of warfare. (whereas phalanxes had first appeared almost 2000 years earlier in Mesopotamia with the Sumerians) Greek mercenaries were a thing, but units were not in large enough quantity to resemble the armies of whole city-states. They would have been recruited from smaller pirate and merchant bands in the levant region, and their tactics would have been as hodgepodge as their composition.
Those Greek mercenary armies were actually used to fight local princes in Lower Egypt and Libyan tribes to the west, who did not accept their new king. These were not serious state-level enemies but more like counter-insurgency. When Assyria descended into civil war in 651 BCE, Psamtik just quietly declared independence as Assyrian troops were called away.
The most likely reason for Psamtik's success was that Assyria under Assurbanipal didn't really make a concerted effort to subjugate Egypt again, seeing how they were preoccupied with the civil war with Babylon. Psamtik's independence was further guaranteed because he pledged his status as a kind of ally to Assyria. In fact, when Assyria was collapsing Egypt sent various expedition northward in a last ditch attempt to save their neighbor and was there with them at the end at the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE.
The remnants of Assyria, the Egyptians and their Greek mercenaries - they lost. Egypt went into terminal decline, ceasing to be a power in the region, because in the end the only claim to their resurgence was their detente and alliance with their northern neighbor.
Psamtik's genius was being able to thread that needle of claiming independence while simultaneously not presenting himself as a threat. It worked for a few decades to temporarily halt Egypt's decline. This documentary has a clear nationalist bias that is really out of place in an ancient world where one's identity was more rooted in personal relations, with royalty being their own cosmopolitan group almost completely removed from the masses. Psamtik and his father owed their lives to Assyria which protected them from the invading Kushites and literally won them their kingdom. That personal history probably counted for a lot in relations between these kingdoms.
More than 3 to 1.... but idiots say otherwise.
@@NeptunesLagoon Nope. The mid-7th century BCE was when the first Greek city state armies started using phalanxes. The Greeks involved in mercenary work were mostly coastal pirates and raiders and had no resemblance to the famous armies that fought Persia some 2 centuries later. Greek mercenaries occasionally fought in the armies of mesopotamia; they were a known quantity and weren't anything special.
The gross misrepesentation here is a supposed Egyptian rebellion against Assyria. There really wasn't a revolt so much as Assyria just let Egypt go as Psamtik maintained extremely friendly relations with his northern neighbor throughout his reign. From the perspective of a native Egyptian like Psamtik, the Assyrian intervention had liberated his kingdom from southern Kushite usurpers and restored native rule. The man was indebted.
Here we go again. Egyptians were not white nor were they black. They were people of color yes. They were what we would consider middle easterners or Arabic people of today. They were not sub Saharan African. I am African American , our history is not history of the Egyptian people. Don’t take away their history. Most black people in America do not have Egyptian ancestors. Take a DNA test
spyk124 - People keep commenting that this channel is “whitewashing”, but the people in this video don’t even look white.
Neanderthal Cave Becky they look Greek in this video I guess. To be fair , some Egyptians are darker than this. But some also look like that. They were described to have a range of colors just like modern day Egyptians
100% Wrong
There was a dynasty of Nubian pharaohs in ancient Egypt. Most Pharaohs weren't black but some were. History can be more interesting Than Fiction.
James Ricker I did know that ! That’s pretty cool. And a lot of the territory they ruled over had Nubian people , meaning they were technically Egyptian
Where did he get the money to hire the Mercenaries? Did he get the priests pay for the Army or did he Rob a few tombs to get the money?
James Ricker
Often royals who need a bit of muscle to get the ball rolling gather a band of loyalists to their cause. Having the support of the Gods calls to people who are loyal but not willing to say it out loud. You meet in secret, most likely at the temples and get them to fund you. They become your benefactors. Their money goes to hiring the muscle you need to gain you throne. Once you have your throne and power again, you promote and praise and reward your loyalists who convince everyone else that this is the best thing for the nation. Throw a celebration for all your people and wham your Pharaoh in far more than just name.
Where are the sound bytes from this they add to the video very nice! starting 0:50-0:51
Why he pale and not BLACK 🤦🏿
The Assyrians were allies to Kmt against the Kushite who were Hyksos made
Good Political Strategy Dude ;)
Sorry I love you and your makeup
The puppet ruler lol
Actor Yul Brynner established the white Ramesses II in the 1950s and even today's knowledgable film producers can't get that pharaoh look out of their heads. 😂😂😂😐
Tosh T
Without a doubt! Spot on!
and Jealous non Biblical nor Egyptian Negroids still lie, even tho they didnt know Egypt existed.... SMH.
Makup like drag queens 💅
For one they were black.
Kushite were black not kemet. We were of color but not like the nubians.
MOSTLY BUT NOT ENTIRELY BY THAT TIME, ESP THE RULING CLASS.
Not a single word about ginger cats. I'm disgusted!
The original Egyptians were not white😂😂😂 sorry
It's kind of joke ?
Well neither was Michael Jackson.
Who cares princess?
Did anyone say they were white?
@@AmandaFromWisconsin This. They were more middle eastern.
The Kushites were the ones who were black not the Egyptians! Kushites even conquered Egypt for a time.
they were both the same people racially. even the greeks and romans recognized this.
Kushites were also Caucasians... youre thinking of Nubians, who arent related to west African primitives....
@@NeptunesLagoon nubians and kushites are the exact same people. and caucasian is a made up term that has no biological meaning. west africans are not primitives. they had civilization long before western Europe. dhar tchitt was a west african civilization from around the same time period and kerma and egypt. they had hundreds of towns and cities. timbuktu before the islamic period was 4 times larger than the city of rome and the people lived without warfare. the nok people of what is now nigeria were smelting iron and creating beautiful art long before the western Europeans were. so when you can west africans primitive and use words like caucasian, it shows how ignorant and uneducated and racist you are. im guessing you are a trump voter.
@Kimberly Combs based on DNA testing the ancient Egyptians were more related to the peoples of the Levant and Mesopotamia than sub Saharan Africans. Ancient Egypt only had one dynasty that was Black and that was the 25th dynasty which were the Kushites. Because the Kushites conquered the native Egyptians and ruled for a century from 744-656BC. Africa is a huge continent with many different peoples and tribes and because the Sahara desert being a huge barrier the peoples of North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa are so different ethnically. Back in Ancient and current times North Africa has been populated mainly by Berbers, Phoenicians, Arabs, Libyans, and other Semitic peoples. If u look at people currently living in North Africa you will notice most have Mediterranean features dark hair, olive skin, etc.
Does the Smithsonian"not receive enough private and federal funding" to Occassionally "Give" complete Documentaries to the Public?
Please respond - Smithsonian
😉
Ancient Egyptias;
- Spoke african language (ref. C. Ehret).
- Practiced an African culture (ref. Wallis Budge).
- Were morphologically clustered with southern Africans (ref. Sonia Zakrzewski).
- Had ABO typing matching that of western Saharan Haratins (ref. G Paoli).
- Had a "super-negroid" body type (ref. G Robins).
- Had STR markers matching predominantly southern african/great lakes/tropical west African/horn of Africa DNA clusters.
Do a better job next time