The knight in the big world of American TV series

Chapter 2365

The United States is in a terrible state right now; it is arguably the worst period since the economic crisis before World War II.

First, something went wrong in the Middle East... well, his close relationship with his father and son in the Middle East is gone!

Not long ago, didn't Apocalypse go to Egypt and establish a mutant kingdom? The teacher said that when Apocalypse went there to establish a country, he strongly claimed that he was a native and the first pharaoh in history.

Although there is no record of this Apocalyptic Pharaoh in any historical relics.

It's as if his existence was deliberately erased... However, that's very possible.

When Apocalypse ruled Egypt, there was no concept of a nation-state in that land. In fact, the first city on this land was built by Apocalypse. At that time, the land was inhabited by tribes. Those near the river had developed agriculture, while those further away relied on nomadic pastoralism. The land was not as barren as it is today.

Early ancient Egypt generally refers to the period from 4500 BC to 3500 BC. During this time, Egypt was considered a humid and pleasant region where people established manors and villages, cultivated crops, raised animals, and developed a stable social and political organization.

In areas far from the river, there are also vast grasslands.

Unlike now, once you leave the Nile Delta, it's all just endless yellow sand!

The Beacon Marsh was an important ecosystem in early ancient Egypt. Located in the Nile Delta region, it was one of the most important wetlands in ancient Egyptian society. This marshland consisted of numerous wetlands and narrow waterways, and its rich biodiversity made it significant. The Beacon Marsh ecosystem included numerous lakes, streams, meandering channels, grasslands, and forests. This unique environment provided a wide range of ecosystem services, such as water, pasture, timber, fishponds, and salt.

In early ancient Egypt, these resources were considered important economic sources, particularly in aquaculture and fishing, making them a crucial part of the Egyptian economy. The Thebes marshes, located in the Nile Delta region, were also an important site for early Egyptian culture and social development. This area is believed to be part of early Egypt.

The Theban swamp served as a crucial hub for commercial and cultural exchange between Upper and Lower Egypt, and a center for interaction, trade, and agricultural development among different city-states and nations. Its significance cannot be overlooked when studying ancient Egyptian culture and social history.

Even so, over the following millennia, the Theban swamp's ecosystem was further damaged by massive amounts of garbage and pollution, resulting in barren and infertile land. Now, thousands of years after the early days of ancient Egypt, the Theban swamp's ecosystem and landscape have also diminished due to human activity.

This was also the foundation for Apocalypse to establish his own empire. However... as the king of the empire, he was actually quite inhuman. He was very ruthless and divided his subjects into classes.

The first level is naturally himself, and the second level is the mutants he recruits everywhere.

Apocalypse possesses an ability that other mutants lack: he can develop the abilities of other mutants! It's well known that mutant genes exist in almost all humans, known as the X-gene… Of course, this is the American term for the source of these mutant abilities. Whether it's truly at the genetic level is something even the Americans themselves aren't entirely sure; their current research is quite lagging. The only thing they can do right now is use the most extreme methods to activate the X-gene in a person… and currently, the success rate isn't very high.

Many of the subjects couldn't withstand the torment of such physical limits and died—Deadpool was a product of this experiment.

But Deadpool has a serious side effect: he becomes disgusting, like a hybrid of testicles and avocado.

There are very few other successful people as well.

But Apocalypse's side is completely harmless; all he needs to do is select those with talent… As for what talent is? He's unsure; Apocalypse can't really explain it clearly. He can only vaguely sense it. Then he can use his abilities to activate that person's mutant abilities.

This caused the number of mutants in his mutant nation to increase rapidly!
The third level consists of the ordinary relatives of mutants, or high-ranking mortals who serve them.

As for the others, they were not included in the hierarchy and could only be considered slaves.

How many people lived in ancient Egypt?

The Apocalypse didn't actually know the answer to this question, because with the level of productivity at the time, he simply couldn't create a bureaucratic system that covered the entire country!

Westerners have offered some answers to this question, which may not be correct, but can be used as a reference.

Ancient Greek historical records indicate that ancient Egypt once had 20,000 to 30,000 cities, far exceeding the total number of cities in China during the Tang and Song dynasties. However, modern calculations show that with only 4% of the arable land along the Nile River and an agricultural yield of 70 kilograms of wheat per acre, the population could only be fed at most two million people.

Did you know that until 2023, only half of Egypt's population was actually self-sufficient in food, relying entirely on imports? Yet, in this food-scarce land, ancient Greek scholars solemnly wrote that "ancient Egypt had 20,000 to 30,000 cities." This isn't an exaggeration; this claim has persisted for millennia. So the question arises: with limited food supplies, could ancient Egypt truly support such a legendary astronomical population? Or is it merely a beautiful misunderstanding created by later generations? Some say ancient Egypt was even more prosperous than China's Tang and Song dynasties, with its population and towns growing exponentially. On one hand, ancient Greek giants like Herodotus and Diodorus insist that "Egypt was full of cities, easily tens of thousands"; on the other hand, modern scholars calmly analyze that "given the limited food production and land area, it would have been difficult to support even a few million, let alone tens of millions." These two opposing viewpoints create a historical mystery. Just how many people were there in ancient Egypt? How could they survive on that little bit of farmland and wheat? This question is like a tangled mess; the more you try to shake it, the more chaotic it becomes.

Let's delve into the secrets behind these astonishing statistics. Ancient Greek history books are meticulously detailed, often listing 20,000 or even 30,000 cities. It's as if all of Egypt was a bustling metropolis of skyscrapers and traffic. However, compare this to China's Tang and Song dynasties, two golden ages, which combined only had a little over 1,500 cities. In comparison, the average town density of ancient Egypt far surpasses that of ancient China. But in reality, ancient Egypt was nothing like the fertile Jiangnan region. Most of its land was desert, with only a tiny area suitable for farming along the Nile River. In 2023, Egypt had only 45 million acres of arable land, less than 4% of its total land area. Furthermore, modern agriculture relies on fertilizers, machinery, and irrigation, increasing yields several times over—conditions completely unavailable in ancient times. Farmers would sow seeds, leaving the crops to be irrigated by the Nile's floods, their harvest entirely dependent on the weather. If a drought, flood, or crop disease struck, the entire year could be ruined. It's simply a pipe dream to feed tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of people with this kind of extensive farming.

Moreover, despite modern Egypt's population exceeding 100 million, its per capita food supply is far from adequate. This forces the government to import large quantities of wheat to balance its food supply. Ancient Egypt, with only one harvest per year and less arable land than modern Egypt, had a wheat yield per acre that was only one-tenth of that of China during the Warring States period. The Warring States period yielded 73 jin (approximately 36.5 catties) per acre, roughly the same as ancient Egypt. Using formulas, during the reign of Ramses IV, Egypt had at most 27 million acres of arable land. Could all of that be used for wheat? It could barely feed around two million people, let alone more. Hearing this, the average person might think: either the ancient Greeks' data is inaccurate, or modern scholars have miscalculated. So, which side is more important?
It seems everyone has "calculated" that the population of ancient Egypt was at most two million, given its limited food production and arable land. The mainstream academic view—that the Greeks exaggerated—is that ancient Egypt didn't have that many people, nor could it have been filled with cities. If this logic holds true, where did they find thousands of young people to work on the pyramids, temples, and Sufi heads—miracles of industrious labor? How did the vast Egyptian empire maintain its massive bureaucracy, army, and priesthood? How did pharaohs like Ramses, Tutankhamun, and Cleopatra feed their numerous subjects and support the unprecedented engineering feats of humankind? Even with the conservative estimate of two million people, digging the pyramids would have required a total mobilization and would have taken significantly longer. Furthermore, ancient Egypt frequently exported food to neighboring regions, even becoming a "granary" for Greece and Rome. How could an agricultural society of two million people supply food to its neighbors?
Many Western scholars argue that the ancient Egyptians, benefiting from the Nile's high productivity during its flood season, had incredibly fertile land and a favorable climate, leading to a rapid population increase. Some even cite the Ptolemaic dynasty as an example, estimating a population of at least 5 million and possibly as high as 11.5 million. However, a closer look at arable land area and food consumption reveals that these figures, seemingly fabricated, are untenable. Historical documents only record the number of cities, lacking any census data. If you were a farmer, seeing only about 70 kilograms of wheat per acre, barely enough to feed your family, how could you dare have more children? Ordinary people faced war, natural disasters, and other calamities, resulting in a drastic population decline and crop failure. They had no time to build pyramids, hold temples, or undertake large-scale projects. Given these realities, the story of "millions of laborers and thousands of cities" during ancient Egypt's golden age seems somewhat unbelievable. Are the historical records entirely exaggerated, designed to inspire awe in later generations for the supposed glory of an "ancient civilization"?

Opposition is not uncommon: they argue that Western academia adheres to the formula "cities plus population equals civilization," applying ancient figures with modern perspectives, resulting in only impressive numbers without a solid food foundation. For example, they point to the fact that "500,000 papyrus scrolls remain, yet no census was conducted," and that "the number of cities was enormous, but not necessarily fully populated." Ultimately, no one can provide a convincing answer regarding Egypt's population. Today's historical community is largely uncertain about this issue, offering various speculations that are either overly optimistic or extremely conservative. It's truly difficult to determine who is right.

But plot twists rarely follow the expected script. Recent archaeological discoveries reveal that the arable land area during the Ramses era was almost identical to that before the construction of the Aswan High Dam in 1971. What does this mean? Turning to the 3150-year-old papyrus, the "Harris Papyrus," clearly records that the arable land area at that time was close to that of modern times. This pushes the mystery of food security to new heights. Who would have thought that, despite so many dynastic changes and technological advancements, with the natural environment remaining largely unchanged, the upper limit of food supply was almost fixed at "27 million mu" (approximately 18 million hectares), a figure not even significantly surpassed by modern Egypt? In other words, without the aid of fertilizers and machinery, the actual population of ancient people was much smaller than the "legend" suggests.

The time for reckoning has come—if even the documented arable land was so scarce, and archaeological data confirms this layer by layer, the so-called prosperous era of "tens of thousands of cities" is mostly just a historical "illusion." Moreover, ancient Egypt only had one harvest a year, and the crops weren't even top-quality varieties; the yield was barely 70 kilograms per acre, and even then, some land had to be reserved for vegetables and grapes. Let alone immigrants, they couldn't even feed their own rural population. It used to be said that "the pyramids required a nationwide mobilization," but now, calculations show that often only a portion of the able-bodied were available for production, leaving the elderly, women, and children completely unused. The construction period was lengthy, and once completed, the remaining tasks were simply maintaining daily life. If all this holds true, then the "miracles" of ancient Egypt are more like "miracles of a small elite society" than grand events that drew massive crowds.

At this point, the impression that everyone has of "ancient Egypt with a million soldiers building pyramids and a metropolis of thousands of cities and ethnic groups" will probably have to be reshaped.

All the figures have been meticulously calculated, yet beneath the surface of calm lies a lurking crisis. You might wonder, if historical data is unreliable, how did Egypt survive so many dynasties and thousands of years of civilization? Mysteries abound. On one hand, even with a modern population exceeding 100 million, food production is still insufficient, necessitating imports. On the other hand, food shortages were even more severe in ancient times; what ensured social stability? Could there have been some form of "social regulation," where the elite controlled food supplies while the lower classes were periodically eliminated? It's also possible that some cities were merely "empty shells," called "cities" but in reality just villages or "fortified settlements," far removed from the concept of a "county town" as in China.

Unexpected obstacles continued to arise. Further historical research reveals that Egyptian historical records did not fully document the entire population; the biennial census was essentially a "household registration survey," perhaps primarily recording tax revenue and labor service. Therefore, the number of cities may not reflect the actual population density. The disagreement widened: some insisted that ancient Egypt, at its peak, had several million people; others countered with hard indicators like farmland and yield, suggesting a maximum of only two to three million. The debate raged on, with neither side willing to concede. Reconciliation seemed a distant prospect, and the academic community had not reached a consensus. The orthodox "city density theory" and the "yield bottleneck theory" remained locked in a tug-of-war. Some scholars even joked, "Did the ancient Egyptians grow up eating air and drinking sunshine?" This comparison is somewhat reminiscent of ancient Chinese history, where ordinary people barely survived amidst natural disasters and man-made calamities, while the elite wielded power and created wonders. However, in Egypt, the lower classes were more easily "eliminated" by food crises, dynasties rose and fell dramatically, and people had to adapt to various social changes. In other words, the mystery of ancient Egyptian population, like the Nile River, appears calm on the surface but is turbulent beneath; no one can say for sure how many people actually lived on that land. Looking at the "population myths" of these ancient Greek scholars, one has to admire their ability to use their imagination: a Nile River basin, where every inch of land was incredibly valuable, was "supported" into one of the world's most prosperous urban areas. If these figures were accurate, even the Tang and Song dynasties of China would pale in comparison. However, the massive undertaking of building pyramids, conducting rituals, and constructing temples in ancient Egypt wasn't actually supported by "millions of unemployed laborers." It was more likely controlled by an elite group, with a small pool of able-bodied men taking turns at the helm. Western historians like to portray Egypt as a "miracle factory," with cities springing up like mushrooms, but let's not forget the hard constraints of food shortages. A more nuanced analysis reveals that their arguments are more speculative than the sands of the Sahara—numerous but lacking substance. Next time you see the legend of "30,000 towns and millions of people in ancient Egypt," remember to ask first: Where did the food come from? If there really were that much grain, would the modern Egyptian government still need to import wheat? These exaggerated claims are probably just "myths made up by foreigners on a whim," giving future generations more to talk about.

But let's go with their plan here, two million!

Two million!

How many bureaucrats would Tianqi need to manage them?

Fortunately, Apocalypse wasn't a political genius either; his administration was extremely lax! He was even inhumane!
Mutants will always be a tiny minority, even if Apocalypse can grant them special abilities! So out of a population of two million, at most ten thousand could be considered truly exceptional? And among them, the number of mutants would be even smaller!
In order to manage a population a hundred times larger than theirs and prevent them from having the energy to resist, Apocalypse could only become even more inhuman.

To put it simply, if Apocalypse had any real power, given the level of productivity at the time, many people probably wouldn't have rebelled at all. This gives you an idea of ​​what he actually did!
Therefore, it is not surprising that his name and his deeds have been deleted.

(End of this chapter)