Was ancient Egypt really all that powerful, or just technologically

It wasn't as technologically advanced as the nations in the Fertile Crescent or the Hittites, but it was much more stable and had a larger and more organized labor pool and the greatest ancient highway (the Nile). They didn't contribute as much to humanity as the Sumerians, but I'd certainly rather live in Memphis than Babylon or Nineveh.

File: Medinet Habu Colonnade.jpg (156KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 900x600px

They weren't technologically or militarily very advanced compared to their neighbors. Egypt was a fairly small isolationist kingdom, while Mesopotamian civilization sprawled all over the Middle East and consisted of various interacting regions and peoples. Naturally, Mesopotamian (and later Mediterranean) civilization were far more dynamic. The Egyptians usually lagged behind the rest of the middle east in technology, which often only changed when technology was forced on them by their neighbors.

Egypt was more of a cultural superpower than anything else. Their architecture and art were the best on Earth for most of the bronze age, and other cultures tended to copy them. Greek sculpture was derived from Egypt, as are all modern writing systems outside of East Asia.

You gotta remember early cradle civilizations weren't at each other's borders. They were centered on fertile land.

>>379226
>as are all modern writing systems outside of East Asia.

Modern writing systems have their cuneiform as their basis, not hieroglyphs.

>>379251
Disregard that initial 'their'.

>>379251
No they don't. They're based on proto-Sinaitic, which is based on Egyptian Hieratic. Cuniform has no modern descendants.

>>379182
Odds I'll shitpost and evens I'll contribute.

>>379274
Contribute away

>>379182
The great pyramid complex was basically the Ryugyong hotel of the ancient world, an impressively large building designed to overcompensate for the country's inabilities to dominate its neighbors.

>>379266
Well, look at that. Thanks, anon.

>>379298
It's pretty weird. Even Mongolian and Khmer are descended from Egyptian scripts.

>>379274
Contribute it is.

>Was ancient Egypt really all that powerful, or just technologically advanced?

Yes but that power fluctuated but over all decreased over time.

>Did they ever actually successfully conquer another ancient civilization of considerable power?

The area south if them was like vassal state of sorts but shit changed over time as you see with the Nubians.

>Even modern Egypt lost to a bunch of Jews four times over the course of 25 years.
Yeah the Egyptian military on top of the general mayhem that is Arab collaboration gave Israel some very easy wins.

>>379182
It's been explained that most of Egypt's virtues were not very pragmatical for war.

Your thread reminds me that my african history (as in, actual african history, not kangz, this hasn't arrived here yet) mentioned that in egyptian society the soldier didn't really have a good reputation.

>>379308
Yeah, well, but very indirectly. Still makes you think about it for a second.

>>379266
Wouldn't the concept of a syllabic based writing system still have been inspired by cuneiform?

>>379337
That's a theory, but I don't thinks it's very well supported anymore. Here's a thing, if you want to look more into it;
>https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp33.pdf

Scroll down to page 99 for stuff about writing.

>>379353
>https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp33.pdf

Appreciate it, anon.

When were they ever conquered by the Greeks? It was Persian land then

>>379721
>What is Alexander

>>379721
Greeks conquered Persian land.

>>379721
Egypt was like the China of the Mediterranean world. It may have been conquered by many different nations and had kings of many different ethnicities, but the people themselves have always stayed Egyptian, whether their ruler was an Egyptian or a Nubian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Arab, etc.