All I know about them is that they were basically some Mad Max style gangs that came out of nowhere (no previous historical mentions) and wrecked most of civilization in the fertile crescent in the late Bronze age over the course of a century, destroying like 90% of settlements and replenishing their losses with the displaced populations, and only the Egyptians managed to resist them because the Nile allowed them to concentrate their defenses in one direction.
>>1352441
Many historians think the sea people didn't actually exist, or at least we're extremely exaggerated. The bronze age collapse was most likely caused by economic failure rather then warfare, the sea people could just be an easy explanation for ancient people who didn't understand economics.
>>1353491
That's utter bullshit though.
Sea peoples are documented by nunerous ancient sources like Egyptians, Hittities and the Levantine people
>>1352441
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQEo5G_OrVU
Good thread, video related, activate the subtitles.
>>1352441
read the book 1177 BC by Cline for an interesting take
>>1352441
"In Ramesses' Year 8, the Nine Bows appear again as a "conspiracy in their isles". This time, they are revealed unquestionably as Sea Peoples: the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen and Weshesh, which are classified as "foreign countries" in the inscription. They camped in Amor and sent a fleet to the Nile."
So, their islands?
It's astonishing how such a large alliance was forged back in the Bronze age.
the Denyen, identified by Chabas in 1872[17] with the Greek Danaoi[18] and by others with the Israelite tribe of Dan;[18]
the Ekwesh, linked by de Rougé in 1867[17] to a group of Bronze Age Greeks (Achaeans);[19][18][20] problematic as this group was clearly described as circumcised by the Egyptians, and according to Manuel Robbins: "Hardly anyone thinks that the Greeks of the Bronze Age were circumcized ..."[21]
the Lukka, linked by de Rougé in 1867[17] to an Anatolian people of the Aegean who may have given their name to the region of Lycia and the Lycian language;[20][19]
the Peleset, identified in 1822 by Jean-François Champollion[22] with the Philistines, and both were connected with the Pelasgians in 1872 by Chabas;[23][24]
the Shekelesh, linked by de Rougé in 1867[17] to the Italic people called Siculi (from Sicily);[20][19]
the Sherden, linked by de Rougé in 1867[17] to the Sardinians[19][20][25][26]
the Teresh, linked by de Rougé in 1867[17] to the Tyrrhenians,[19][20] possibly ancestors of the Etruscans;[27]
the Tjeker, identified by Chabas in 1872[17] Greek Teucrians;[28]
the Weshesh, linked by Chabas in 1872 with the Oscans,[17] but who have not been strongly linked to a people documented in other sources[23]
Basically an alliance witch stretched all over the Mediterranean, it's amazing if you think about it.
The shipwreck of Uluburun, which sank in the 14th century bc, could be associated with them.
>>1352441
Sea peoples are what happen when the ancients dumped their cum into the sea
>>1355446
>It's astonishing how such a large alliance was forged back in the Bronze age.
I doubt that such alliance actually existed. Ramses most likely created it for his own propaganda purposes. The Sea Peoples' raiders weren't probably different from Europe's Dark Age raiders - warbands under their own chieftains, both forming ad hoc alliances and fighting among themselves.
>>1355481
Yes, they most likely did fight among themselves, but I think that they did form occasional alliances in order to fight bigger powers like Egyptians and the cities in the Levant such as Ugarit, which got burned down probably by a fleet of Shekelesh and Lukka..
>>1355494
True, but that was likely a short-living alliance (for a duration of one raid) between two tribes or just two warbands, not a wide-range conspiracy between a dozen or so peoples.
>>1355501
The Egyptians name much more than two tribes at a time attacking them
