The account, by 3rd century BCE Egyptian historian Manetho, of the appearance of the Hyksos in Egypt 15 centuries before his time describes it as an armed invasion by a horde of foreign barbarians who met little resistance and who subdued the country by military force.

It has been claimed that new revolutionary methods of warfare ensured the Hyksos the ascendancy in their invasion.

Herbert E. Winlock describes new military hardware, such as the composite bow, as well as the improved recurve bow and most importantly the horse-drawn war chariot, as well as improved arrowheads, various kinds of swords and daggers, a new type of shield, mailed shirts, and the metal helmet.The traditional explanation is that there was an invasion; one that took several years and that wasn't a coordinated effort of some foreign kingdom, but mostly a migration of particular groups, tribes or federated tribes, which had access to new and superior weapons developed further away in Asia that helped them conquer a rich piece of land to live in, and were possibly being routed from their own areas.In the last decades, however, the idea of a simple migration, with little or no violence involved, has gained some support.

Under this theory, the Egyptian rulers of 13th Dynasty were unable to stop these new migrants from traveling to Egypt from Asia because they were weak kings who were struggling to cope with various domestic problems including possibly famine.

The ceramic evidence in the Memphis-Fayum region of Lower Egypt also strongly argues against the presence of new invading foreigners.

Indeed, Janine Bourriau's excavation from Memphis as well as her study of ceramic material retrieved from Lisht and Dahshur during the Second Intermediate Period shows a continuity of Middle Kingdom ceramic type wares throughout this era with little to no evidence of intrusion of Hyksos-style wares.

Bourriau's evidence militates against the traditional Egyptian view--as espoused by Manetho--that the Hyksos invaded and sacked the Memphite region and imposed their authority there.

Not until the beginning of the Theban wars of liberation during the 17th Dynasty are Theban wares found in the Fayum-Memphis region which indicates that the Hyksos controlled the Delta region while Middle Egypt and the Thebaid functioned autonomously and shared limited contact with each other.At some point in time, the foreigners, whose elite might have already been local rulers in the name of the Pharaoh, realized there was no need to pay tribute and obedience to a weak king, and took the title of Pharaoh for themselves in the north of the country, the Hyksos never having penetrated the south.The first century CE historian Josephus, quoting from the work of the historian Manetho, described the invasion:“By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow; and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of gods… Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis.

”Supporters of the peaceful takeover of Egypt claim that there is little evidence of battles or wars in general in this period.

They also maintain that the chariot didn't play any relevant role, so there was no real technological superiority on the Hyksos side.

The case for the invasion, on the other side, is based mostly on: (a) the traditional Manetho's explanation; (b) the fact that the chariot was a new technology spreading from Central Asia and that there are other theories of invasions by nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes mounted on chariots in 1700–1300 BCE, most notably Hurrians in the Near East (Helck) and Aryans in India (the Vedas), with the Hurrians in particular being active quite near where the Hyksos appeared; and (c) the fact that the chariot became the master weapon of that period, the weapon of nobles and kings, and one of the most important symbols of power in Eurasia, because in Mycenaean Greece, India, Mesopotamia, Eastern Europe and China, kings and gods started to be portrayed on chariots, buried in chariots and always went to war in chariots.

With such an important new weapon, the advocates of the invasion theory say, it seems strange to consider that the Hyksos just entered peacefully in the north of Egypt from Asia, with no knowledge of the chariot, or knowing it but choosing not to use it.

Hence, the Egyptian description of the Hyksos was likely propaganda.