The Battle of Kadesh

[kryszcztov]

The Battle of Kadesh was fought by the Egyptians and the Hittites in the XIIIth century BC, in today Syria. My belief is that this battle wasn't won by either party, which makes the theory of a great Egyptian victory false, without pretending that the Hittites defeated Pharaoh. Ramesses II told about this "victory" on numerous temples' walls, and some people may think that, in fact, those hieroglyphs are telling the truth.

Is it possible to clear this for sure ?

 

[jonatas]

I have the same understanding, basically it was a draw which was then played up as a victory by both sides.... however it's nothing more than something I've heard. Perhaps someone here actually knows for sure, like Mongoloid Cow or Verbose....

 

[CruddyLeper]

Pretty sure Kadesh was covered on BBC Time Commanders.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Basically, the Battle of Kadesh was a Pyrrhic victory for the Hittites (they won the battle but with too many losses to consider it a victory). Ramesses II's army was outsmarted and was to the point of annihilation by the Hittites, when the fateful arrival of a detachment of the Egyptian army arrived in the right place at the right time. The Hittites still won, but the Egyptians managed to escape to fight another day. Neither side was particularily keen for the war for control of Syria to continue, so the Treaty of Kadesh was drawn up over the next couple of years which divided Syria between the two. Both sides claimed a victory, but only the Hittites reported the real story. Ramesses as said announced it a great victory on temples, monuments and so forth, but that was a load of bullcrap.

 

[Adler17]

Ramses was surrounded by enemies himself. He was among the very last who fought. In this moment an Egyptian army detachment arrived to rescue the pharao and his army. Later the first peace treaty was made and over centuries it was believed the Egyptians were the winner until a report from the Hittites was found what was really going on.

Adler

 

[Xen]

Personally, I find the commentaries the Egyptian wrote about the allied contigents int he Hittite army most interesting; they point to the lkegendary Troy being an allied nation of the Hittite empire, which lines up well with what Homer would later tell about the relations between the two lands.

 

[kryszcztov]

So it seems people here so far admit that Ramesses II (perhaps the greatest Pharaoh of all periods) has been lying on the temples' walls. This is what I believe in, not because of a personal belief that won't be subject to change, but because of what I've read everywhere on the Internet.

The guy I have an argument with is an African guy, and believes Kadesh was an Egyptian victory. He accuses me of revisionism when I tell "my" (the generally accepted) version. What do you think ?

 

[Richard Cribb]

So it seems people here so far admit that Ramesses II (perhaps the greatest Pharaoh of all periods) has been lying on the temples' walls. This is what I believe in, not because of a personal belief that won't be subject to change, but because of what I've read everywhere on the Internet.

The guy I have an argument with is an African guy, and believes Kadesh was an Egyptian victory. He accuses me of revisionism when I tell "my" (the generally accepted) version. What do you think ?

I think you are completely right.
A good source can be found here

 

[CruddyLeper]

The guy I have an argument with is an African guy, and believes Kadesh was an Egyptian victory. He accuses me of revisionism when I tell "my" (the generally accepted) version. What do you think ?

Arguable. One of the big problems with history is that it consists of what gets written down and artifacts found after the event.

A literal translation of all the Egyptian records would lead one to conclude that Kadesh was an Egyptian victory.

It's a problem with history - it's not immune to propaganda.

 

[LouLong]

I agree with the statements above.
Pharaohs were extremely good at erecting buildings (including texts) to their glory. Technically if Ramses had won that clearly I don't see why Syria would have been cut into 2 pieces while the north (Amurru) was mostly under Egyptian "control" before.

Revisionist ? Hmm ! lately I have never seen so many revisionism and bull**** than while trying to talk with an African about history. Not all of course ! Guess that's caused by the Africanist movements in the US where you can follow lectures of Black History done by Black teachers who teach things that are sometimes extremely doubtful (like Cleopatra was black) but must be respected because of "political correctness". Avoid the discussion because that's what the person is looking for and he can literally bombard you with "sources" that I would use personaly as toilet paper.
This is all the more stupid since I guess most people would probably side with Egypt because it was much more interesting than Hittites, albeit those where among the first Indo-Europeans to enter "history".
Can you ask him what he thinks about Ramses II's campaigns in Nubia ?

 

[Verbose]

As far as I know the best info re the outcome of this battle is from the peace treaty signed by both parties (in Egyptian and Akkadian, the international diplomatic language of the day).

The direct outcome of the battle was a massive reducion of political support for Ramses in northern Syria, i.e. the locals regarded the Egyptians as having high-tailed it back south leaving the Hittites in control and defected to them. I think it's the best index of who won or lost this battle.

The peace treaty also left the Hittites holding these areas, but also meant a peace and an alliance between equal powers — with treaties for the extradiction of wanted criminals etc.
Some archaeological evidence from the delta (the military workshops of the Ramesside pharaos) also seem to indicate that Egypt started importing Hittite military technology (shield-patterns, armour), which isn't that surprising considering how Egypt always lagged behind the rest of the Middle East in military technology.

As for the actual battle, lots of reconstructions have been made (one by general Montgomery no less) and they seem to agree that the Egyptian four divisions were lured into an ambush.
The Hittites managed to string them out, attack and destroy the second division, leaving the first (with the pharao) cut off. It is then possible that Ramses personally managed to execute a breakthrough south, where he linked up with his two remaining divisions (who never participated) and made a run for it.
Tactically Ramses maybe snatched a crushing victory from the hands of Muwatallis, possibly preventing him from further expansion south by keeping the Egyptian army largely intact. Nevertheless, politically the Hittite king seems to have come out on top.

 

[kryszcztov]

Even if History today is a little eurocentric, we mustn't forget that it has never been as "true" as it is today. History is a kind of science, and can be subject to change as we find counter-evidence of what was stated in the first place. I'm pretty sure that historians first considered Kadesh as an Egyptian victory, because Egypt was a lot more known than Hatti. But Ramesses claiming victory on every temple's wall is a bit simple anyway... when you know their epic way of describing events. We Westerners are closer to the Hittites by means of ethnicity (Indo-Europeans), but I believe we feel much closer to the Egyptians, whose civilization has always fascinated everyone here. I don't believe that we don't trust Ramesses because he was from Africa : a logical point would be that Europeans glorify the Egyptians.

My friend never bothered to counter-argue with links or whatever. He says he can't buy cheap links on the Internet. That is why a discussion in a forum might be better, and maybe in this discussion some people can provide strong links from established historians (must check that one).

 

[kryszcztov]

Bumpy bump.

Anyone who would disagree with me and the current majority of us ?

In order to fight (with arguments) those who accuse some Europeans of being revisionists, let's consider these points :

- Why would European scientists deprive Ancient Egypt of some of its supposed glory ? If we believe the scientists, Ancient Egyptians weren't not considered as Africans in ancient times, just like Carthaginians. I say this because my African friend thinks it's a trick to give less credit to Africans.

- The civilization of Kush is now being quite known. They were a people living south of Egypt, in today-Sudan. They were a lot more African, and had links deep into Africa. It is now admitted that Kush sometimes overruled Egypt, the best example of this being the reign of the "Black Pharaohs" in the early 1st millenium BC ; Taharqa comes to mind as being the most powerful King of Kush. Why would white Europeans (English and German scientists !) glorify this rather black people, to the point of putting a shade on Ancient Egypt ?

- When the majority of scientists agree on something (here, the battle of Kadesh), why make a point of not agreeing with them ? Just because you feel it sounds like a revisionist theory ?

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Why would European scientists deprive Ancient Egypt of some of its supposed glory ? If we believe the scientists, Ancient Egyptians weren't not considered as Africans in ancient times, just like Carthaginians. I say this because my African friend thinks it's a trick to give less credit to Africans.

They don't really. They only deprive Egypt of glory it never really had, such as the Battle of Kadesh. Earlier archeologists certainly placed their own opinions and morals to form Egyptian "history" (creating rather bizarre interpretations to match), but by the 20th Century it had changed to just reporting fact.

The civilization of Kush is now being quite known. They were a people living south of Egypt, in today-Sudan. They were a lot more African, and had links deep into Africa. It is now admitted that Kush sometimes overruled Egypt, the best example of this being the reign of the "Black Pharaohs" in the early 1st millenium BC ; Taharqa comes to mind as being the most powerful King of Kush. Why would white Europeans (English and German scientists !) glorify this rather black people, to the point of putting a shade on Ancient Egypt ?

They don't, and technically you'd probably be better calling them "Nubians" considering the time period; the Ku****e power had largely collapsed north of the 5th Cataract by then with Napata and Merowe replacing it. Nubia by this time had become superior to Egypt. Before, Kush and Egypt had been relatively equal, with fluctuations from one to another when one had a capable and strong ruler. Nubian and Egyptian culture had largely absorbed into each other too, with the Nubians absorbing much Egyptian religion, mythology and architecture during the Ramesside era, and the Nubians likewise influencing Egypt from the 25th Dynasty onwards. So in short, they are only giving Kush and Nubia the credit they deserve. Does it strike your friend as odd that a European would do that?

- When the majority of scientists agree on something (here, the battle of Kadesh), why make a point of not agreeing with them ? Just because you feel it sounds like a revisionist theory ?

Not sure I follow what you are asking.