Was the conquest of Canaan barbaric?

Answer 1

By the standards of the day not at all. Having said that, all war is barbaric, some just less so. Only three cities were destroyed with fire, since the Israelites came to live in the land and to 'inhabit cities which you did not build'. These cities, Jericho, Ai, and Hazor were all strategically central. They came not to plunder and ravage but to dwell in the land permanently. The inhabitants of the land did not have to fight. Some, like the Gibeonites ended up being servants to Israel (albeit by a clever strategy).

Some of the inhabitants evidently chose to move elsewhere and others were not conquered till later, under David. In all, when one considers the utter barbarity of the later Assyrians, and the evidence from Archaeology of the utter depravity of those inhabitants they replaced (many would be in the prisons of most countries today for their depraved acts) it was 'mild' as far as wars go.

To make it plain, the exaggerated pictures of destructive genocide are factually exaggerated and do not give a true picture of what actually happened. The latter picture is closer to the truth since it wasn't a massively destructive 'slash and burn' type of thing, although the evidence is there in the three above-mentioned sites (when correctly identified, especially in the case of Ai).

Summary:

In terms of military conquests and in the light of the many that had occurred already in that region it was not particularly barbaric. But, to be honest, all war is barbaric. This is why the inhabitants had the opportunity to flee. Those who suffered most were those who resisted the most.

Answer 2

The conquest of Canaan as described in The Bible involved warfare, destruction, and displacement of the Canaanite peoples. From a modern perspective, these actions can be seen as barbaric due to the violence and destruction involved. However, it is important to consider the historical context and the beliefs and practices of the time when evaluating the conquest of Canaan.