Critic: Under these conditions, were the Ten Plagues and a total crush of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea waters to happen, as we are told by the Torah, Egypt's ruthless neighbors -- the Babylonians and the Hittites -- would immediately invade the powerless country, conquer it, and glorify their victory in dozens of records, inscriptions, and monuments. Yet nothing like this ever happened. More specifically, historical records tell us that between 1320 and 1283 BCE Egypt and the Hittite empire were at a state of permanent war; had the Ten Plagues and the Exodus happened in 1313 BCE, when Judaic tradition claims they did, they would have quickly led to a Hittite invasion and conquest of the ruined Egypt -- which, of course, did not happen. Instead, after almost four decades of indecisive war, a peace treaty and a mutual defense pact were signed between Egypt and the Hittite empire.
See there for the authors response (which only responds to the plagues - not to the splitting of the Red Sea).
Most of that discussion between the critic and the author I'm not currently interested in. What I want to do is strengthen the question of the critic based on extra-Scriptural Judaic tradition.
The simple read of Exodus 14:4 - 28 (especially according to the Ramban in pasuk 28 and the Ibn Ezra in pasuk 9) is that the ENTIRE Egyptian army drowned at sea. This is because even though I agree that pasuk 28 could be explained as specifically referring to the part of the army that came, if the word "cheil" in pasuk 28 (Ramban) or 9 (Ibn Ezra) is referring to foot soldiers, then when it says "u'v'chol chei'lo" in pasuk 4 and 17, it's also referring to foot soldiers (and not just the horsemen/charioteers), and in those pesukim (4 and 17) the pashtus seems to be that ALL of the foot soldiers are going to chase after the Jews.
If so, then the question of the critic is much stronger; why didn't the Babylonians/Hittites attack Egypt immediately afterwards?