Considering they were in a wilderness, there weren’t many villages. God specifically told them not to fight certain groups, such as the Edomites, though they did fight some essentially defensive battles against people who started it. It wasn’t until after Moses’ time that they did any major conquests to acquire land, and that was at God’s behest.
For what it’s worth, I disagree that Jesus studied with the Essenes, and I don’t find it “pretty clear historically” that he did so. But that he existed and was the basis for what we call Christianity isn’t a matter of serious scholarly debate, even among atheists. The generally acknowledge that he was crucified, too. It’s the resurrection that elicits skepticism, though I think the evidence there is also quite good when viewed as a cumulative case.
On the other hand, I’m not aware of any “evidence pointing the other way.” Could you provide some evidence that he didn’t exist?
It is the right question, and the right answer involves at least a summary of process whereby you came to your conclusions and which scholars you followed. I’ve been researching this sort of thing for some decades myself and have come to radically different conclusions. The Essenes, for example, were roughly Pharisees with a bizarre and involved eschatology. New Agers or flower children they were not. John the Baptizer’s connection with them was probably just that they saw him as someone who sought to purify Jewish people and their worship and to usher in the Messianic Age.
Even Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan acknowledge that Jesus was historical. Atheist and historian Tim O’Neill deals with this extensively: https://historyforatheists.com/category/jesus-mythicism/
I don’t see the egocentrism. Moses could have set himself up as king or named his sons as his successors, but he didn’t.