Talk:Battle of Kadesh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / History B‑class
WikiProject iconBattle of Kadesh has been listed as a level-5 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Commanders and Leaders[edit]

The Commanders and leaders listed are quite specific, e.g. Piyama-Inarash lead forces from Wilusa. I think this requires a citation of a source since Wilusa is not even listed in the Appendix A - The Hittite Allies section later in the article. As another example, extant Hittite texts list Masturi as the king of the Seha River Land, but what source identify him as a commander at Kadesh? In short, the whole section is lacking in citations. (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Named Hittite Dead According to the Egyptians[edit]

Recent edits have added the names of some of the Hittite dead, as listed by the Egyptians afterwards. I have been reverting these edits, but in fact I would love to see such a list. But I would like (1) that it not be plagiarized from another source, and (2) that it come from a source a little more recent than 1892. Name normalizations have changed a bit since then. Consider this a "call out" to some friendly Egyptologist out there to add this information. Publik (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Kadesh merely means a 'holy city' - there were many. This battle was NOT fought at the city stated in the article, as simple research will demonstrate. The geography is all wrong. It was fought at Carchemish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply] and similar IP's are socks of banned and blocked Rktect (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rktect. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hard battle[edit]

It was a very difficult battle for either the Egyptians and the Hittites. Both sides were used to different type of warfare and slowly defeating a much weaker enemy, town by town, until beaten into submission. Neither the Egyptians or the Hittites were used to face a well disciplined army, face to face, in one single event.

This should be kept in the article because it implies how the Egyptians had almost never before waged a major battle with a great superpower, such as the Hittites. That is the major reason why they were not able to bring whole Syria under their rule, unlike in the times of the 18 dynasty.Egyptzo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are several objections to this: (1) You don't say "Egyptians", you say "both sides". (2) Stating that they were used to a different type of warfare, where only much weaker enemies were attacked, is contradicted by numerous difficult battles and outright defeats faced by both sides throughout their respective histories. (3) Stating that neither side were used to facing disciplined armies is simply incorrect. (4) Stating that the nature of this battle differed, rather than the scale of the battle, cannot be substantiated. (5) The Egyptians had in fact directly faced off against the Hittites before.
And so on.
Try some of these references. There are countless other references to the same effect. Murnane, William J., The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak, SAOC No. 42, Chicago (1990). Yadin, Yigael, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, Vol. I and II, International Publishing (1963). Beal, Richard H., The Organization of the Hittite Military, Texte der Hethiter, Heft 20 (1992). Yadin's work is particularly good for covering a broad depth of history, including much on the evolution of Egyptian warfare. Publik (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. When Sety I captured Kadesh he was faced with a much smaller force of the Hittites, rather than Ramesses II. No egyptian pharaoh before Ramesses had confronted such a great superpower (whith the complete enemy army) in direct conflict. Onely the Mittani were the real superpower that the Egyptians had previously faced in Asia, and even that was not a complete conflict with whole armies facing one another in one great battle. Moreower the Mittani were never as powerful as the Hittites.

2. Most of egyptian campaigns (especially before Kadesh) were carried out by taking towns by towns, thus slowly defeating enemies.

3. Stating that they were used to a different type of warfare, where only much weaker enemies were attacked, is contradicted by numerous difficult battles and outright defeats faced by both sides throughout their respective histories. - This is wrong, for example, the great battle of Megiddo was not a conflict with a GREAT SUPERPOWER and disciplined army but instead a coalicion of cities led by the prince of Kadesh. Again, Kadesh did not rule a great empire. If you call the Syrians and Cannanites powerful enemies of Egypt, this is complete nonsense.

4. The Egyptians had in fact directly faced off against the Hittites before- Sety I and his predecessors faced Hittites by conquering cities not battling in great battles.

5. The subsequent campaigns of Ramesses himself reveal this to simply be one battle in years of sustained conflict.- he never before waged such a great battle with a huge and complete army oposing him. Egyptzo (talk)

6. Numerous difficult battles and outright defeats faced by both sides throughout their respective histories. - yes, but (in egypt) later in egyptian history, when they battled the Sea peoples, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians...etc. With those nations the egyptians did fought difficult battles, such as the battle at Carchemish. Egyptzo (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The arguments you make above are not reflected in the statement in dispute.
The first sentence is unnecessary, as that is what the whole article is about. I ask you to consider whether or not it actually adds to the article. However, if you feel strongly about it, then leave it.
The second sentence is a personal point of view. None of the arguments you make above are indicated in the sentence, and they are incorrect. You have to employ special pleading to make it true, excluding battles for such reasons as the absolute size of the forces involved, who exactly participated in each battle, and whether or not they really qualified as a "super power".
"Neither the Egyptians or the Hittites were used to face a well disciplined army, face to face, in one single event." This is simply not true.
I suspect the idea you are trying to convey here is that never before had the Egyptian king and the Hittite king directly faced each other in battle. But the passages in question do not convey that idea. Publik (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I want to say is that egyptians did before almost entirely fight by fighting against cities and local city kingdoms, such as the capture of Kadesh by Seti I., or sometimes a coalision of city-states, such as the Battle of Meggido.

:"Neither the Egyptians or the Hittites were used to face a well disciplined army, face to face, in one single event." This is simply not true. - Warfare in ancient Egypt during the New kingdom, before the XX dynasty, did not consist of mass ranks of disciplined armies squaring up to one another across an open plain. They very rarely, if ever, faced huge professional armies in one great battle. The prefered tactic was to subdue a weaker city or state one at a time resulting in surrender of each fraction until complete domination was achieved. This tactic could clearly be evidenced in the sieges of Dapur and Tunip, after the battle of Kadesh. With the large number of fortified cities throughout Palestine and Canaan, they were forced to employ siege warfare at times.

Before the New kingdom, especially before the takeover of Lower Egypt by the Hyksos, most conflicts the Egyptians had fought had been civil wars, where mainly armies of conscripted peasants and artisans led by noblemen opposed each other, or relatively short campaigns south into Nubia extending the southern borders of the realm, or east and west into the desert regions.

However, later, during the Late periods the egyptians did face many more professional armies at great battles; Charchemish, Qarqar, Pelusim, Siege of Prosoptis, etc...

I suspect the idea you are trying to convey here is that never before had the Egyptian king and the Hittite king directly faced each other in battle - true among other assertions.

Egyptzo (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made an attempt at compromise language, based upon the above discussion. Publik (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Killed and wounded in battle[edit]

1. Matsurama, Muwatalli's brother 2. Grabatusa,charioteer of Khitasir 3. Khirapusar, a royal secretary 4. Rabsuna, another general 5. Tarakennas, the commander of the cavalry

Egyptzo (talk)

The principle objection to the inclusion of your statement is that it was lifted wholesale from another source. Reword it, and cite your source. There is a secondary objection that can be overlooked until a more current source can be used; your source is very, very old. Our understanding of how to render names found in Egyptian sources has changed since the 19th century. The inclusion of such a list would in fact be quite interesting, and a very valuable addition to this article. Publik (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Give it up on "shortly afterwards"[edit]

The constant reinsertion of "shortly afterwards" into the "Result" section is misleading, which is why it keeps getting removed. The Hittite expansion as far south as to conquer Apa took place in the same campaign. Please stop reinserting it, as it will continue to be removed. "Because my brother Muwattalli campaigned against the king of Egypt and the king of Amurru, when he defeated the kings of Egypt and Amurru, he went back to Aba. When Muwattalli, my brother defeated Aba, he [. . .]ed and [went] back to Hatti, but [he left] me in Aba." KUB 21.17 i 14-21, trans. in Beal, Richard H., The Organization of the Hittite Military, Texte der Hethiter, Heft 20 (1992) p. 307 Publik (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Placement of table of Hittite allies[edit]

The location of the table listing the Hittite allies was moved from a footnote into the main body of the text. There is nothing wrong with that, and in fact that is where I originally placed it. However, I felt that a long table like that disrupted the flow of the article, so I gave a brief summary in the article body, and then moved the detailed list into a footnote. I leave it to other editors to decide where it makes the most sense. Again, I don't have any problem with it being in the main body, it just seemed to me to take up too much space there. I did take the correction of the spelling of Carchemish. Thank you for that. Publik (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the current location of the table for the exact same reasons as you. User:Super Knuckles 18:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I do realize why you did it. Then it would be good to list shortly just the names of the lands and people Hittites brought with them as allies, such as the previous version, so that more information can be found more easely. References are mainly used for citing books and literature, not entire tables. But again, I agree with you. Egyptzo (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The desire to move the list out of the footnotes is a good idea. I created an appendix for that purpose. This leaves the article uncluttered, removes the table from the footnotes where it did look weird, and makes it clear what the reader is linking to, which the footnote reference did not do. Publik (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of Qadesh image[edit]

Hi, Yuval. Could you please explain your removal of the Qadesh image? I couldn't ever make out any details in it, couldn't even tell if it was the right place, but am wondering what the problem was with it. Copyright? Thanks. (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind. I found your explanation under the Kadesh article. Publik (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Length of Quotes[edit]

I have made a correction to the quote, which mixed two different sources. (ANET, the source of the translation, does not confound the two sources.) But here I wanted to open a discussion on the length of the quote. I feel it is too long, and ends up repeating information discussed in the article. I don't have any problem quoting the sources, as it does lend a sort of connection with the originals, but feel that they shouldn't result in the repetition of information, and should be short (As an encyclopedia article isn't meant to be a source translation). In this particular case, there doesn't seem to be any need to quote extensively in order to establish the dates. Simply stating the date(s) at the appropriate point(s) in the article and citing the source seems adequate. I would appreciate thoughts around this topic. P.S. On a minor note, I removed the bold formating from the dates, as they seemed unnecessary. Publik (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you, they should be removed form the main body of the article, it should be in the futher reading section. User:Super Knuckles 15:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a subjective issue. In this instance, the quote PROVES Ramesses II spent an entire month in Canaan from leaving Egypt to reaching Kadesh. It also gives the exact dates of his departure from Egypt and his arrival at Kadesh. So, no one can say the battle took place prior to Year 5 III Shemu day 9 of Ramses's reign. It also gives the reader a 'taste' of the approaching battle by quoting Ramesses II's account. I doubt the Hittites even bothered to give a narrative on Kadesh...except its results. Most people can read a historical event but they never get a feel for the participant's view of the battle but this quote is different--it is a sourced primary ANET document and tells the reader what was happening. PS: The quote doesn't say that Rmss II opened a large gap with his other army divisions. It only describes his arrival at Kadesh...prior to the interrogation of the 2 Bedouin spies. So it is not that repetitive.

As an Aside, the size of this article on the Battle of Kadesh--one of the most important battles in ancient history--is acceptable at 25 KB. The addition of the valuable quote has not increased its size excessively. In contrast, has anyone seen the size of the article on Ramesses II: it is a monster at 61 KB. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not much for me to add here. I agree that the "acceptable" length of a quote is subjective. I leave the quote intact and merely throw the topic out there for discussion. I favor shorter quotes. Super Knuckles suggests placing it in another section to get it out of the main flow. (And, naturally, thank you. I always love to hear the words, 'I agree with you'.  :-) ) And, of course, your preference is to essentially leave it as it is, or perhaps work it into the main body in some slightly different fashion. I think all are legitimate options. As Wikipedia is a group effort, rather than the creation of a single author, I'm content not to push the point.
Out of curiousity; I don't know that anyone has questioned the date?
Additionally, it's true, the Hittites hardly bother to mention the battle, and certainly didn't view it at all in the same way as Ramesses.
And lastly, the quote doesn't mention of the opening of a "large" gap because the sources don't say that. It does mention that, upon hearing that the Muwattalli was supposedly at Aleppo, he hurried on forward to make camp. From this, it is a modern interpretation of what happened. It's really just a judgement call by a modern author trying to explain what Ramesses did wrong. It's the sort of thing about which I have to bite my lip and try not to hack out. Publik (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also prefer shorter quotes, but if this one in necessary I'm not against it, but my idea is to replace it, the same thing we did to the Hittites table. PS: Since Leoboudv remembered the size of Ramesses article, noticed that the section of the battle of Kadesh in that article is huge, shouldn't we remove all of that and simply type something like: "It was one of the most important battles in ancient history, and Ramesses' second campaign to Syria; it was important to his reign because of the peace treaty..." and so the readers should be directed to this article instead? Super Knuckles (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Superknuckles, It is a reasonable suggestion; however, all those people who would prefer to lengthen the article on the B. of Kadesh would migrate here. (remember Rktect? and his long quotes) Perhaps its best to let sleeping dogs lie. Hopefully, an Admin will one day 'break up' the bloated Ramesses II article into something more manageable. I think this particular article is quite manageable...after you removed those excessive quotes from you know who--some of which concerned Thutmose III of all people. As an Aside, Ramses II doesn't mention the gap between his armies since he had the privilege of writing his own version of history as pharaoh. It is Egyptologists who must separate fact from fiction. The sourced quotes shows he spent a whole month preparing for battle in Canaan. The dates establish the time he left Egypt and arrived at Kadesh. PS: BAR III, p.317 also records that the B. of Kadesh occured in Yr 5 III Shemu day 9. I added that sourced quote. Leoboudv (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess you are right, then they would start mass editing this article as well, and I don't want to be part of another exhausting edit war. As for the quote, and as I said before, it doesn't really bother me the way it is now, I would prefer if it was in the fruther reading section but I don't mind if it stays as it is. Super Knuckles (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's begun, the user Markh removed all the unnecessary info about Battle of Kadesh in the Ramesses article and users already started adding that info into the article, I already reverted two edits of those, but we might need some help clearing these. Super Knuckles (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recording the battle[edit]

Woody, I'd like an explanation for your last edit in this section. The cryptic comment which accompanied your edit did not explain why you considered what I wrote to be POV, nor did it actually address the facts I described (most of which are substantiated in the article itself, if you look). Precisely what did you object to? --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woody can address this himself... but he's right. What you wrote must be classified as point of view. Your statement clearly suggests the possibility that the battle didn't happen. The battle is famous precisely because of the detailed evidence available about it, which does not exist for earlier battles. There's no reason at all to question whether or not it happened. There is no reason to expect to find remains of a two day battle at a city that existed for thousands of years. Most battles don't leave any evidence, especially when the city wasn't destroyed. Most battles also don't provide evidence from both sides, as this battle does. If you wish to introduce the documentary records as being propagandistic, restrict it to the Egyptian side. Good luck establishing any factual errors in the Hittite account - they barely mention it, and do so in the context of other events. I understand what you were attempting to do - provide an introduction to the records, and put a precautionary note about reliability of the sources. But it needs to be expressed differently. Publik (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not simply my POV that the battle may not have happened. This is a possibility for any putative historical event for which there is virtually no evidence whatsoever (and especially no physical evidence). Look at the article on the Sumerian King List for an example. The list includes the names of a number of kings for which there is no physical evidence at all, and you cannot tell me that historians and archaeologists simply accept the list as accurate despite lack of corroborating physical evidence. And no, this battle isn't famous precisely because of the 'detailed evidence about it' which 'doesn't exist for earlier battles'. As you've already said, the Hittite record is sparse (so we are unable to use it to verify all the details of the Egyptian record), and the lengthy 'detail' of the Egyptian record is largely propaganda, with a few factual assertions thrown in. See 'Pharaoh's People: Scenes from Life in Imperial Egypt' (TG James, 2007), who says 'This romanticized record of the Battle of Qadesh cannot be treated as a truthful account of what happened, and I doubt whether many ancient Egyptians would have accepted it wholly as an historical record' (page 26). He continues on page 27 to say that the 'broad facts' are 'probably reported with a fair degree of accuracy', but then asks 'how can truth be separated from fiction?' (he then explains the correct methodology). Was a truce called for during the battle? The Egyptians say yes, the Hittites don't record any such thing.
It isn't unreasonable to expect that a two day battle involving around 60,000 men and around 5,000 chariots would leave some physical evidence, especially since we know exactly where it took place and when, and especially since smaller battles have left abundant remains (the famous last stand of the Spartans at Thermopylae is demonstrated by dozens of arrowheads at the place where the Greek records claim they were finally cut down by a shower of enemy arrows). But I didn't make a huge point of that, and I don't need to. The simple fact is that although there's no physical evidence the battle ever took place, there are good reasons to assume it did on the basis of the textual evidence (thought this requires careful handling, conjectural emendation, harmonization of the contradictions, and overlooking the factual errors).
If you think the Hittite record contains no propganda nor factual errors, then I suggest you actually read it. You could at least read the Wikipedia article we are discussing, which identifies a clear factual error in the Hittite record. It claims that the 'Chief of the Royal Bodyguard' died, but we know from other records that he did not die. Some translators harmonize this with a conjectural emendation of the text. Another factual error is the Hittite claim that a brother of Muwattalli named 'Ḥmţrm' also died, yet Hittite records name all four of Muwattalli's brothers, and none of them were called 'Ḥmţrm'. Once again historians reconcile the contradiction by positing a conjectural harmonization (in this case suggesting that 'Ḥmţrm' isn't mentioned in other Hittite records because he was omitted possibly because 'he was the son of a second rank wife'). This is all mentioned in the Wikipedia article we're discussing. I don't know how you could have missed it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one believes that Ramesses' version is entirely truthful. But please identify someone who actually questions whether or not it took place.
Please read what I wrote. I am not contesting whether or not it took place, nor have I claimed that anyone questions whether or not it took place. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If you think the Hittite record contains no propganda nor factual errors, then I suggest you actually read it." - The Hittite records? I have not simply read them, I have translated them. And I have read translations of the Egyptian accounts.
Would you say that the Hittite record is free from propaganda and factual errors? Would you say that the Eygptian record is free from propaganda and factual errors? --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"You could at least read the Wikipedia article we are discussing" - There is no cause to accuse anyone commenting here of not having read the article. This is an intentionally inflammatory comment.
There is plenty of reason to believe some here have not read the article, since they are ignorant of some of the facts it contains, and have charged me with 'original research' despite the fact that I am saying nothing more than what has already been said in the article itself. Repeating what is in the article does not constitute 'original research'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"It claims that the 'Chief of the Royal Bodyguard' died, but we know from other records that he did not die." - Yes, I know. I put that in there. It is an Egyptian claim, not Hittite.
"Another factual error is the Hittite claim that a brother of Muwattalli named 'Ḥmţrm' also died . . . 'Ḥmţrm' isn't mentioned in other Hittite records because he was omitted possibly because 'he was the son of a second rank wife'." - Yes, I put that in as well. And again, that death was an Egyptian claim, not Hittite. Publik (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the correction. That is not clear from the article. From what you're telling me there is in fact no independent corroboration of the Egyptian account of the battle whatsoever (other than its outcome), which should certainly be mentioned in the article. By the way, you seem to be under the impression that I was addressing you, but I wasn't. There's no need to take this all so personally. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For documentation purposes, I removed: Despite knowing the date and location of the battle, archaeologists have found no direct physical evidence that the event ever took place. Knowledge of the battle is derived from the propagandist accounts of Hittite and Egyptian records, both of which contain obvious factual errors, and which disagree with each other. Assuming the event took place however, the history of the battle can reconstructed with reasonable certainty by reconciling the conflicting accounts through harmonizing the contradictions and overlooking the factual errors. I removed it because, to me, it was written from a point of view and seemed to be original research which is against one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Reading it again, I understand the point but it needs to be reliably sourced so that we can verify it. Woody (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said before, the article itself describes the fact that the only sources we have for the battle are the Egyptian and Hittite records (that is all we have, nothing else), and the article itself contains an explanation of errors and contradictions in the sources, as well as some treatment of how they are harmonized and reconciled by historians. What I wrote was neither POV nor 'original research'. I suggest starting by actually reading the article in question. One of the most common failures of Wikipedia editors is that they simply don't read the article they're editing. I'm happy to have 'Assuming the event took place however' removed (though you cannot read the available texts as historical records without that assumption), but I don't see why the rest should be removed, especially since it's simply a summary of the information in the article itself. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I arrived home tonight I looked up the Hittite record in ANET. I found 'Hattusilis on Muwatallis' War Against Egypt' (ANET, page 319, 3rd edition 1969), and it's certainly very brief (though just as propagandistic as the Egyptian). Not only does it contradict the Egyptian account in its description of who won ('Muwatallis... defeated the king of the land of Egypt'), it contains no details confirming the Egyptian account of the battle, meaning that the Egyptian account is completely without any independent substantiating evidence whatever. Of course, this is assuming it's the same battle, since this Hittite record provides no date nor does it describe where the battle took place (though there can't be any other historical events which fit, given that this specifically records a war between the Hittites and Egypt conducted under Muwatallis). It does claim that Muwatallis defeated Damascus as the same time, so there should be a corresponding destruction layer at Damascus. Does anyone know if this has been substantiated by any physical remains? If not, it means that neither the Egyptian nor the Hittite record can be substantiated with any independent records at all. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking of Hittite records, can someone provide the Hittite records other than the source I cited? The Hittite Ramses II-Hattusili III treaty contains no details of the battle that I can see. How do we know the number and details of the Hittite forces? Is there a verifiable record? Is it simply assumed that the Egyptians carried out an accurate head count of the Hittite army and recorded it faithfully? Or is it a fact that 100 years of archaeology has been unable to substantiate any of these details independently? I would find that very difficult to believe, especially given the confidence with which they are asserted here, but perhaps we can only say 'Archaeologists have been unable to verify any of the events recounted in the Egyptian and Hittite records of the Battle of Qadesh'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Publik, how about an explanation for your last revert? Quite apart from being good manners, it's also Wiki policy. As you can see, what I wrote was discussed here and no one expressed any objections to my last comments here in the discussion thread (including you). It is clear that you do not want the article to include the information I placed in the article. Please explain why. If you have personal reasons for doing so, then please understand that they are irrelevant. You must have objective reasons for doing so. You could start by challenging the factual content of the claims if you believe them to be false. Otherwise, please give your objective and documented reasons for removing the material. At present you are displaying anything but good faith. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you've replaced what I wrote with a considerably softer version which downplays academic doubts about the Egyptian records, eliminates the word 'contradiction', does not explain the methodology by which historians reconcile the texts and reconstruct the history, and generally attempts to avoid mentioning the fact that there is no physical evidence for the battle and that the Egyptian account is unverifiable (you deleted completely my academic reference to this effect). Again, could I ask why? Your latest edit is certainly an improvement on your previous censorship of the uncertainty and unverifiability of the available accounts, but still strangely POV. What exactly is the issue here? --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given you have no objection to 'stating the obvious', what is the problem with using the actual word 'contradiction', instead of coyly suggesting that the two accounts 'portray quite different results from each other.', without actually mentioning the fact that the problems with the Egyptian record are not simply limited to the actual result of the battle? I still don't understand your removal of my academic reference to the Egyptian account. The main article basically repeats the Egyptian record uncritically, and even passes over the claim of supernatural assistance entirely without critical comment. In fact the article even claims 'Only through the gods did Ramesses personally defeat his attackers and return to the Egyptian lines'. Does anyone really believe this? --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edit war[edit]

Can all editors please use this page, the discussion page, to discuss your issues instead of constant reverting. I would like to remind everyone about the three revert rule. It is a policy of Wikipedia that you all seem to be flaunting. If you do not start discussing your issues, and continue to blindly revert, then I will have to hand out further blocks and fully-protect this page. Please discuss your issues here. Woody (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hear, hear! I have noticed that Publik continually makes whatever edits he pleases, without even attempting to discuss them here. I have raised specific issues with him in this Talk page on numerous occasions, and he totally refuses to discuss them at all. Instead he simply deletes what he likes, reverts as he pleases, and doesn't feel remotely bound by Wikipedia editorial polices, or even common courtesy. I have still not received any explanation for his repeated removal of certain edits I have made. It's a contravention of Wikipedia editorial policies and process. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have currently added some more stuff about the battle which I have now proved and substantiated. Other claims were picked up from the documentaryies about the Hittites and Egyptians - see parts of one such documentary here [1] [2]. But of course, you can not cite a documentary. Egyptzo (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main cocern about the your edits, Egyptzo, was that you added repeated info, in my recent edit you can see that I removed that info. Abou the battle section I reverted the all thing, because, while proves to be a good source, it was a version of the battle that is not matched by other versions, not even by that I conseder the best source of the battle. Hope you understand. Super Knuckles (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree about deleting the repeated info, but it would be best to have as much as possible info in the battle section, such as the one that the pharaoh rode round the hittites and returned to camp, or that he attacked first the eastern and then the western wing of the hittite army. In the end vouldn´t it be best to have one source, in this case this article, as the article with all details. Why would we left them out if we know them. The aftermath section depends on personal views so it can be left as it is. Egyptzo (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree with the "as much as possible info", I agree with correct reliable info. That source was the only one claiming that there were two chariot forces attacking the camp, and also Ramesses attacking alone the Hittites is believed to be propaganda. Personally I don't think that part of the battle is correctly described by historynet, touregypt and other sources say that Ramesses attacked the Hittites with the help of other soldiers, and the heroic "stand alone" attack by him is propaganda. It was I who used historynet as a reference in the article for the first time, but I know it has mistakes as saying that the Egyptians had a force of 35,000 men, it is believed they had 20,000 infantry and 2,000 chariots with two men each, that gives us 24,000 men. The historynet gives us a description of the battle as the Egyptians told us, with no looking at the Hittites references. So, unless you give me a description like the one of historynet it will stay out of the article, for it's own sake. Super Knuckles (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is precisely why the methodology of reconstructing the battle has to be explained, since there are so many variations on who was there and what happened. Since there's no independent evidence for the battle, reconstructions sometimes differ from each other significantly. It should be explained to the reader why this is, and how the conclusion of the academic consensus is reached. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Un-indenting) My reversions originated as edits concerning very specific items, detailed below. Towards the end, additional information was slipped in, but as it was wrapped up within a massive reversion, it simply became impractical to weed through it all. Thus my own reversions. Woody, I apologize and blush for my lapse of judgement and for taking this all too seriously. However, I'll make my points and be done with it.

I mention two sources in the discussion below. Here is the full citation for each:

Gardiner, Sir Alan, "The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II" (1975)

Kitchen, K.A., "Ramesside Inscriptions, Translated & Annotated, Notes and Comments, Volume II" (1999)

The points at issue for me:

"Ramesses saw that Egyptian vassals were loyal and that the Hittite power seemed weak" - Prove it

"He desperately wanted a victory at Kadesh partly in order to expand Egypt's frontiers into Syria and to emulate his father Seti I's triumphal entry into the city" - Prove it

"In order to accomplish this, he incorporated as many men as possible into his army" - Prove it

"including the Sherden sea pirates whom he had captured just a few years earlier specifically for this climatic battle." - Prove it. Actually, this one seems rather easy to disprove: "Now his Majesty had made ready his infantry and his chariotry, and the Sherden of His Majesty's capturing whom he had brought back by the victory of his strong arm." Poem ll. 25-26. This does not state that they were captured "specifically for this climatic battle". If Ramesses says that somewhere... prove it.

"The Hittite forces left Anatolia and marched to Syria, joining with their allies allong the way" - This was a later addition, irrelevant to my reversions, but I might as well address it. This is almost certainly true in essence, but is pure speculation, or misleading at best. There is absolutely no information about how the Hittite troops assembled. There may have been a single assembly point, as is documented for one of Mursili II's campaigns.

"Once they reached Kadesh they set camp on the northwest side of Kadesh" - This was also later, but should be addressed, as it is wrong. Unfortunately, it requires the following rather lengthy quote from Kitchen, "In [Breated's] time, the manuscript evidence was less complete than now. Hence, he had the Hittite camp initially on the North-West of Qadesh (following Papyrus Sallier-Raife, in P. 55), whence the Hittite king moved east across the river before Ramesses II arrived (Battle of Kadesh, 27 No. 11, 30; ARE, III, 129/131, P299). However, full publication of the Karnak and Luxor texts showed tha P. Sallier-Raife was in error: they have "North-East", not North-West (KRI, II, 21, P.55). Hence, the Hittite ruler had camped across the river from Qadesh, to its North-East right from the start." (Kitchen, p.21)

"Ramses saw Kadesh in the distance through the haze" This was also a later addition. I don't recall Ramesses mentioning anything about a haze, but as always, I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong.

"Muwutalli split his forces in two sections after he saw the Egyptians approach Kadesh. His prime force, which included the majority of his chariots, swung left to cross the Orontes River south of Kadesh, to surprise the Egyptians by attacking the rear of their army. The Hittite king himself, swung right, intending to block the Egyptian retreat across the Orontes river in the north" - Also a later addition, already addressed by Super Knuckles.

"The Hittites had lost most of their chariots" - Prove it. That'll be tough - Ramesses doesn't say, "out of a total number of Hittite chariots I destroyed xxx". Even if he had, his superhuman solo slaughter of the Hittites is recognized as bunk, and it would be very interesting to know how the Hittites managed to continue their southern conquests if most of their chariots had been destroyed.

"was killed by an Egyptian arrow even before he could reach the Orontes river and cross it to confront the Egyptians." You need to reread your source. It states that he was killed before he could cross back from the Egyptian side of the river. I would have simply corrected this if I had known your source.

"The Hittite records claim that Muwatalli pursued the pharaoh, but more likely, he retired toward Aleppo and then finally to Hattussa where he ordered a celebration of a great victory. He soon continued to successfully campaign as far south as the Egyptian province of Upi (Apa)" - Prove it. As for the bit about when the conquest of Apa occurred, this has been discussed a ridiculous number of times. Look up in this discussion page.

"Archaeologists have been unable to verify independently any of the events recounted in the Egyptian and Hittite records of the Battle of Kadesh." - This has also been addressed. Look up in this discussion page.

It wasn't 'addressed', it was simply dismissed. The objection raised was that this statement supposedly implies the battle did not take place, but the accompanying text in my edit ensures the reader cannot reach that conclusion. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Details of the battle are reconstructed with reasonable certainty by reconciling the conflicting accounts through harmonizing these contradictions" - I've read the source for this statement. He doesn't do anything different than anybody else: look at all the sources he knows of, and draw his own conclusions. He does not map out some special formula that historians adhere to in order to resolve conflicting accounts.

No claim is made that this source does anything different than anyone else or 'map out some special formula'. It's simply an example of how the battle is reconstructed with reasonable certainty by reconciling the conflicting accounts through harmonizing these contradictions. What is your objection to explaining this methodology and giving examples? It has been about three weeks since I made three posts here specifically requesting clarification from you on this issue, and only now have you even bothered to respond. That is simply rude. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While on the subject of being accused of willy-nilly deletions, I would like to point out a few that I didn't delete. Although I do not believe these statements supported by the evidence, I merely requested a source citation, leaving the statements intact (sources were not forthcoming).

"and many died from crashes between their own chariots"

"Muwatalli decided to cut his losses and retreated with his forces into Kadesh"

"Here he had built factories to manufacture weapons, chariots, and shields, supposedly to the amount of some 1,000 weapons in a week, about 250 chariots in 2 weeks, and 1,000 shields in a week and a half."

"together with his personal guard and some of the chariots recovered from the broken divisions of Amon and Re"

Finally, as long as we're talking about reversions, I find it interesting that, after going to some effort to reorganize the article into a consistent, non-repeating whole while retaining the vast majority of information that had been added, those edits were unceremoniously reverted with the laconic statement, "adding details". Not, I point out, added back into the article in its new form and commented on... just reverted.

By the way, my statements of "prove it" are real. If you can prove it, I'll happily concede, and you can lecture me to whatever degree you feel appropriate. I will not, however, spend the next month going back and forth on these issues. This is not Google Groups. I find it unfortunate that the above rather lengthy excursion will probably result in another archiving of the discussion page. Publik (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "many died form crashes between their own cahriots", I originally took it from the spanish version of the article, that is FA, and I read it somewhere but I don't remember where sorry. The "together with his personal guard and some of the chariots recovered from the broken divisions of Amon and Re" I took it form historynet, but only after I saw it was also stated in the touregypt. The "Muwatalli decided to cut his losses and retreated with his forces into Kadesh" can be seen in the, also read it somewhere , but don't remember. I searched a lot about this battle so I don't remeber every site or book that I used to gain info. Super Knuckles (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Super Knuckles. I hope not to have caused you any offense through any of my above comments. I'm sure you know my frustrations are not directed at you. I fully understand the difficulty of putting something together, not expecting it to cause any sort of inquiry later, and then being left high and dry because you can't remember where you got it from! It is an experience I am unfortunately familiar with. I've come to rather like Google Books. It's helped me track down a few old memories! Publik (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry Publik, no offense taken. As I hope that Egyptzo isn't offended by the reverts with did to his versions, we are only trying to imrpove the article (as he is) but some times not every one agrees and that's why I hope we can settle our differences here and work together, as some of us did when other user named Rktect kept adding wrong info to the article. Super Knuckles (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To find at least some of the answers fore your questions an proving, watch this documentary whose parts are here: [3] [4] By the way, the fact that the Egyptian forces were less numerous comes directly from Egyptian forces and it may be pure propaganda in an effort to show that the pharaoh, although greatly outnumbered fought a victory and returned home a hero and victor. So, some scolars do indeed claim that the Egyptian army was more numerous as stated in the historynet. Egyptzo (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't revert until we find out a solution, if you say that "some scolars do indeed claim that the Egyptian army was more numerous as stated in the historynet" cite it, I don't remeber most of sites I ran into regarding the battle of kadesh, but I never saw a statement saying that the Egyptians had more men, only the contrary, besides we already have lots of references suporting this, so that regard it's incorrect. The documentary gives some info, but it's ripped, so it would be good to have the original because some content might be missing, it wouldn't be the first time that happened on youtube. Super Knuckles (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not remember all my sources either. One thing I do remember is that there was one book about military history that supported the idea that the Egyptian army was more numerous (although I also consider that information unlikely). If those two paragraphs depend on the view, then they are not wrong, and should not be erased from the article. On the other hand I did not erase anything from the previous revision, I just added some additional information. What would happen if we would all be deleting something we do not like or do not agree with, or even have a different opinion? I do not agree about some things in the aftermath section and other sections, but I nevertheless left them in the article. In the first part of the documentary, you saw dr. Gaballa support my claim that the Hittites had lost most of their chariots. Nothing that I write is my own personal opinion, but opinion of experts, at least some of them. Over my information (view) write a different, additional view in the same article. Egyptzo (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since there isn't a consensus, we (users) should vote, "my" version of the battle section against "yours", the one that wins should have their place in the article unless some major change as to be made. Super Knuckles (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that some of the voters here have no relevant education in the matter under discussion (for example, I do not have any training in Egyptian or Hittite history), it is going to be necessary for you to explain the merits of your respective views, explaining the methodology used and citing relevant academic sources (currently I support the edit of SuperKnuckles on the basis of what Publik has said). This is precisely why the article needs a section on methodology, because the reader has no clue as to why the History Channel version is any more or less accurate than what they read here. Given that there is no independent evidence for the battle, all reconstructions use standard techniques of the historiographical method to arrive at a reasonable approximation of accuracy. It would be helpful to identify what these are. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm mostly against these: "The pharaoh wrapped the reins about his waist to control the horses of his chariot named Victory in Thebes and Mut is Satisfied so that his hands can be free. Then Ramesses single-handedly charged into the Hittite lines, determined to save his army and fortunes or die trying, rather than get captured or perhaps even lose an empire. Ramesses managed to ride around the Hittite host and return to his own camp unharmed", and "On the battlefield remained only two formed groups of Hittites in their chariots, one on the east and another on the west flank of the main force. Ramesses led his recovered forces to charge against the Hittite force to the west. He soon realised the Hittite chariots were too numerous there, and decided not to engage in a direct confrontation. So he returned back to his camp and immediately launched an attack against the enemy force to the east", the first one is completely based on the propaganda Ramesses wrote, that he fought alone, and the second seems to be a personal view of the battle by the author, no other reference mention that there were two forces of Hittites, and were they were, that's why I say they are a personal opinion. The other differences are the arrival of the Ne’arin, but this is debatable, some versions claim that they came to help the Egyptians in the camp, while others say they only arrived to help them defeat the upcoming Hittite chariots. Other users are also against this:"Ramesses responded by changing tactics and acting with tactical brilliance. He closed with the enemy and used the terrain to his benefit in order to slow the Hittite chariotry before they could reach great speeds. Hittite chariots had to cross the Orontes and mount the riverbank to reach the plain where the Egyptians were. Also, by fighting them close to the river, he kept the Hittites from making a formation. That protected his own flanks and allowed him to fight only a small part of the Hittite force at one time." I didn't revert it, but since we are at it should we delete or keep it? It is from the same reference I claimed to have personal point of views by the author. If everything is clear, now decide. Super Knuckles (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really would not want to rely on the Historynet article at all. I've got, but haven't read, "Considerations on the Battle of Ḳadesh" by Hans Goedicke The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 52, (Dec., 1966), pp. 71-80 which should help (and also something from the Journal of Near Eastern Studies on who the enemy king was). Ah, I also have "Kadesh Revisited: Reconstructing the Battle Between the Egyptians and the Hittites" by Antonio Santosuosso The Journal of Military History, Vol. 60, No. 3, (Jul., 1996), pp. 423-444. I'm not happy with the site also as a source also but maybe someone can convince me it's good. Anyway, I have these sources, might have or be able to get more, and if people want my help I'm happy to chip in (a short summary of the issues here or on my talk page might help). Taiwan boi suggested I drop by.Doug Weller (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do that, so we can end this stupid edit war, my sources are all drained (can't get from them nothing new), so your help in this would be really helpful, these summaries would clear things a lot, and we could decide debatable things like the timely arrival of the Ne'arin. Super Knuckles (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Super Knuckles, your objections sound fine to me (for what it's worth). Dougweller, it's great to see you've been able to help out so much with this article, it has been wanting informed input from another editor. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Year of the battle[edit]

This is disputed -- we know when in his reign, but: "2There is, however, disagreement on the year, 1300 or 1286 or 1275/1274 B.C., mainly because of different interpretations of the New Kingdom's chronology, which can vary by fourteen to twenty-six years." this related to 3 different chronologies for Tuthmosis's reign, Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 104 n. 23. Might be easiest just to drop the calendar year. I've also added 'Qadesh' as that's used quite a bit also, and I had to use that spelling to look it up in one of my books. I'm editing a copy at --Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry about the year, it is already stated why it's used 1274 isntead of the others. Super Knuckles (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Routledge Archeology Ancient Turkey 2009 lists it at 1285 BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgonggr (talkcontribs) 16:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

A substantial part of this article is copied with slight changes from and must be removed, which I will do shortly. There really is no choice in the matter. (This explains why it reads so much like a story and has so much detail in it that isn't in the texts and reliefs).--Doug Weller (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This [5] is the latest version that doesn't have a phrase (I hope) from the article in it - I used Wikiblame to search for "understandably believed their enemies". I think this is a good thing, as the article is written by a US civil war buff who is in real life a tax examiner, and is basically a fictional rendition of the battle (ie some facts viewed through a creative imagination).Doug Weller (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] is the last copyvio free version with a few edits of mine. I haven't corrected the bit about the Shasu - it reads ", two Shasu Bedouin prisoners were captured and revealed that the entire Hittite army and their king were actually near to hand, hidden behind the city to the east." but at least one version of the text says "there came two Shasu, [not captured then] to speak to his majesty as follows: "Our brethren, who belong to the greatest of the families with the vanquished chief of Kheta, have made us come to his majesty, to say: 'We will be subjects of Pharaoh and we will flee from the vanquished chief of Kheta; for the vanquished chief of Kheta sits in the land of Aleppo, on the north of Tunip. " -- 200 km away, not nearby (of course they were lying).Doug Weller (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doug, concerning the Shasu spies: there were two separate events. First, two came to deceive Ramesses, and then later two more were captured and beaten to reveal the truth. Publik (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's ok, I know that, just haven't had a chance to get to it. Where do you get beaten though? From Wilson: "There came a scout who was of the bodyguard of His Majesty, and he brought two scouts (9)of the foe of Hatti. They were led into the presence, and His Majesty said to them: "What are you?" They said: "We are of the foe of Hatti; he it was who made us come to spy out the place where His Majesty is." Said (~?)His Majesty to them: "Where is he then, the foe of Hatti? Lo, I have heard that he is in the land of Aleppo!" They said: "Behold, the foe is come, with the (H)many foreign countries which are with him, which he brought with him as support, from the land of Dardania, the land of Naharin, the Keshkesh, Mysia, Pe[dasia, the land of Cilic]ia, together with Lycia, the land of Carchemish, the land of Arzawa, the land of Ugarit, Ilium, the [land of] Mushanth, Kadesh, Aleppo, and the entire land of Kode. They are equipped with their infantry and their chariotry, bearing their (12)weapons. They are more numerous than the sands of the shore. Behold, they are stationed, equipped, in battle array, behind Old Kadesh." Nothing there about them being beaten, Doug Weller (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's part of the pictorial record. There's a picture of it in the article currently. The caption along with it reads, "The coming of Pharaoh's scout bringing two scouts of the Fallen one of Khatti into the Pharaoh's Presence. They beat them to make them say where the wretched Fallen one of Khatti was." (Trans. Gardiner 1975, p. 36 (R8)). Publik (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pictoral record you refer to shows them as different from other men, as tall on their knees as the men beating them. This is interesting because the Egypians are known to characterise the people they encounter by hair style, dress and physical attributes, and are clearly telling us that these are people of the im.
The Im were the ancient Canaanites destributed throughout the mountainous areas of pre conquest Canaan. The Zum-im from Ammon, the Nephil-im, the Em-im of Moab, the Repha-im, the Caphtor-im, the Hor-im of Mt Seir, the Av-im from Hazerim to Azzah, the Anak-im mentioned as destroyed by Joshuah;
Biblical references include Goliath of Gath, Ishbi-benob, the brother of Goliath, Orpah - Mother of Goliath and Ishbi-benob, Og, King of Bashan who fought Moses, Sihon, brother of Og, Ahiah, father of Og and Sihon, son of Shemḥazai, Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak.


Goedicke thinks they were Canaanites -- military colonists Egyptianized (they are portrayed as Egyptians, recall). On the other hand, I found this;Schulman, A. R. 1981. The /narn/ at Kadesh Once Again. JSSEA 11: 7-19 "Schulman argues that the /narn/ of Ramses were Egyptians, not foreigners, and deals with the various movements of the Egyptian army before the battle, military intelligence on the Hittite side, all information indicating that the /narn/ did not form a separate and independent column, but were the survivors of the divisions Amun and Pre. The foreign word is used by the scribe to demonstrate his familiarity with Asiatic military terms. (from the AEB) We need to include both as suggestions as to who they were.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might as well throw this into the mix: Kitchen follows Gardiner follows Eduard Meyer (All the way back to 1928) that the Ne'arin are those forces described in the Poem P63, "his Majesty had made the first battle-force out of all the leaders of his army, and they were upon the shore of the land of Amor". Seems pretty straightforward to me. Alas, pretty much everybody and their mother have had different opinions on who the Ne'arin were. Publik (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Dardanians are not identical to the Trojans, although they are from Wilusa, and the Hittites had a treaty with Wilusa. I know some sources say they are but they have a separate mention in Homer.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And commenting on someone who identified the Dardanians with the Trojans, Michael C Astour, in "Review: Some Recent Works on Ancient Syria and the Sea People" by Michael C. Astour Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 92, No. 3, (Jul. - Sep., 1972), pp. 447-459 wrote "Which is, incidentally, not so: the Iliad carefully distinguishes the Dardanians from the Trojans, not only in the list of Trojan allies (11:816-823) but also in the frequently repeated formula keklyte meu, Tr6es kai Dardanoi ed' epikuroi (e.g., III:456)."Doug Weller (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was my connection, from one of my sources. However I'll take Astour any day of the week over the source I used. Besides, going to those lines in the Iliad... seems pretty obvious. Point happily conceded. Publik (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other Stuff[edit]

Doug, Reviewing your version, here are some thoughts of mine:

Right off the bat, I'll have to say something that probably will be considered here completely in dispute. Labeling this battle as a "pyrrhic victory" for Egypt seems a stretch, particulary when it also states that the campaign ends in an Egyptian retreat while the Hittites continued to campaign south. In order to be defined as "pyrrhic", Rameses would have needed to retain the field.

An important note of mine got deleted from the last paragraph of the Background, about the antecedents of the battle. It's currently footnote 10 in your version. To that footnote should be added, "Although, per Murnane, William, The Road to Kadesh, this capture probably took place in the reign of Seti I." (Maybe replace "per" with "according to")

As a personal opinion, I feel that the "Documentation and disagreements" sections fits more naturally with the "Recording the Battle" section, along with the "Disputes over the outcome", but don't intend to sweat it. (My reasoning is that discussing the documents seems a good place to discuss the perceived reliability of said documents.)

The first sentence in "Kadesh campaign" now overlaps the same information in the first sentence of "The contending forces"

It looks like you removed the reference to the Dardanians as Trojans down below, but it should also be removed in the "The Contending Forces" section.

Since they were already discussed above, in the "Battle" section, you could probably just mention that the "Ne'arin arrived from Amurru", or something like that.

I regret that the extended tables of Hittite allies and Hittite dead have been removed, and would be interested in knowing why (particulary since the link to Appendix A no longer works). I'm not so much concerned about the Hittite slain, but feel the Hittite allies table provides the complete list in a convenient form. The link to the Appendix should at least be removed.

The "Recording the Battle" section lists the Poem and the Bulletin as sources, but not the Pictorial Record, nor the papyrus, nor the greater information around the cuneiform sources. That information exists in the first two paragraphs of the current "Recording the Battle" section.

Oh, and I much prefer the current "Further Reading" section.

Publik (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is lots of stuff to be put back, inlcuding the tables. They weren't deliberately removed, I simply restored an old version which didn't have them, and I did that because it was the easiest way to make sure there was no copyvio stuff (I hope) left. I'll try to take on board all your points above, at a quick glance I agree. And the article should have no definitive statement about it being a victory (of any kind) or a defeat, but present encyclopedically the various disputes/positions of scholars.Doug Weller (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha. Cheers. Publik (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should have checked first, the tables are there.Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I was commenting on your sandbox version. Sorry if that caused any confusion.) (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The battle wasn't a victory for Egypt. It was a defeat strategically--that is the key. Ramesses II never repeated his father's success in capturing Kadesh and coouldn't advance into Hittite territory. I am certain Ramesses II wanted to capture Kadesh--if not he wouldn't have personally been present for the debacle that ensued. Ramesses II won his 'personal victory' on the field by holding his ground at Kadesh but he lost the war since he could not now capture Kadesh and the Re brigade was almost wiped out. He had to retreat and regroup his forces while crushing revolts among Egypt's vassals. If ever there was a 'pyrrhic' victory for Ramesses, this would be it. But you have to give him credit, he did come back a few years later and capture Tunip and Dapur...for a brief while before losing them again. In the end, Ramesses II himself realised that it was better to make peace than war with the Hittites. Leoboudv (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's still unclear to my why the info box has this labeled as a Pyrrhic victory at all. This battle was more of a draw. Even if the end result is considered a tactical victory for Ramesses II, that doesn't seem to be enough for it to be a victory in the spirit of the term. Furthermore, even if arguendo a tactical victory is enough, the losses don't seem sufficient to justify the term pyrrhic victory. The level of losses would have to be extensive enough that "one more such victory would utterly undo him." I don't believe that is the case here. Therefore, even in a metaphorical sense the term Pyrrhic Victory should not apply. I do have a verifiable source for a tactical Egyptian victory for the info box. Any issue with it being added and the Pyrrhic part being eliminated? NastyBrutishAndTall (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More further reading[edit]

Should any of this be included?

Faulkner, Raymond O. 1958 The Battle of Kadesh. Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchŠologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 16: 93-111.

Gardiner, Alan 1960 The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II. Oxford

Murnane, William J. 1985 The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak. SAOC, 42. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Rev. Alan R. Schulman, JNES 48 (1989) 48-50.

Goedicke, Hans 1989 The Battle of Kadesh: A reassessment. In Perspectives of the Battle of Kadesh. Leiden "A synopsis of the article in AEB 1985"

BREASTED J.H., The Battle of Kadesh, a Study in the Earliest Known Military Strategy, Chicago 1903 University of Chicago's Decennial Publications.

KUENTZ Ch., La Bataille de Kadech, "MIFAO" 55 (1928).

BREASTED J.H., The Battle of Kadesh, Chicago 1933.

GARDINER A.H., Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford 1966, p.189-95, 259-263.

HARTMAN Thomas Charles, The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II: An Analysis of the Verbal Patterns of a Ramesside Royal Inscription, A Dissertation Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan 28, Number 10 (1968), 4150. Cf.: AEB68264.

WAY T. von der, Die Textuberlieferung Ramses'II. Zur Qades-Schlacht, Hildesheim 1984.

OCKINGA B., On the interpretation of the Kadesh record, "CdE" 62 (1987), p.38-48.

BRUNNER Hellmut, Hierogliphische Chrestomathie, Wiesbaden 1992, Tafel 20 (text from the temple of Abu Simbel)

KITCHEN K.A., Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated & Annotated. Translations, Volume II: Ramesses II, Royal Inscriptions, Oxford - Cambridge Mass. 1996 Blackwell Publishers.

STURM Josef, La guerre de Ramses II contre les Hittites. Traduction francaise de Claude Vandersleyen et texte allemand original. Der Hettiterkrieg Ramses" II., Bruxelles 1996. Sorry, forgot to sign the above. Doug Weller (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC) see belowRktect (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History CHannel documentary[edit]

Well, I don't know what you think but I don't think this sentence is correct: "A History Channel documentary "Ancient Discoveries: Egyptian Warfare" suggests Egyptian arms had stagnated and were ill prepared for encounters with the more modern and larger forces they'd come to encounter in the borderlands." I watched the documentary and I think that it meant that the Egyptians were ill equipped before the arrival of the Hyksos, before the new technologies brought by them were adopted by the Egyptians. So what you think? Should we change it? Super Knuckles (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't seen the documentary, but your understanding is correct. (Also, throughout all of the ancient Near East - including Hatti - the light, horse-drawn two man chariot precedes the development of the Hittite three man chariot, which makes its first appearance here at Kadesh. And it is clear that at Kadesh not all of the Hittite chariots were three man chariots.) Publik (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we should change it, don't you agree? Super Knuckles (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. Publik (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose naming the page "Battle of Qadesh"[edit]

Are there any objections to moving this page to the Battle of Qadesh - a more up-to-date spelling? IansAwesomePizza (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Most people will look for this information under the name "Battle of Kadesh". very few people will try and find it under its triliteral root Qdsh. If it works don't fix it Rktect (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Massive changes[edit]

Please don't give Rktect more than three opportunities to leave this article alone before bringing him up for review again. In defense of this position, just go back and review the debates on his previous edits of this article. Publik (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There are other sources than those used in the article as it presently stands. First there are the inscriptions Ramesses II had carved. If you can't read them in the original Egyptian or be bothered to look them up in Gardiner, at least look at them, they are instructive. Secondly there are some interesting bits of information in the papyrus Anastasi.

Come let me tell thee of other towns, which are above(??) them. Thou hast not gone to the land of , Kadesh, Tekhes, Kurmeren, Temenet, Deper, Idi, Herenem. Thou hast not beheld Kirjath-anab and Beth-Sepher. Thou dost not know Ideren, nor yet Djedpet. Thou dost not know the name of Kheneredj which is in the land of Upe, a bull upon its boundary, the scene of the battles of every warrior. Pray teach me concerning the appearance(?) of Kin; acquaint me with Rehob; explain Beth-sha-el and Tereqel. The stream of Jordan, how is it crossed?

This gives us an account of the land of Kadesh and its allies. If you plot them on a map you can see that the border territory involved is in the land of Aram and the Ammurru along the border between Canaan, Lebanon and Syria

-Kadesh: qdS -Tekhes: txs -Kurmeren: kwrmrn -Temenet: tmnt -Deper: dpr, town stormed by Ramses II. -Idi: idi -Herenem: hrnm -Ideren: idrn -Djedpet: Ddpt -Kheneredj: xnrD -Kin: qin -Beth-sha-el: bitSir close to Rehob (rHb)(Beth Shean) -Tereqel: trqAl

Some of these towns are also mentioned in accounts of battles with the king of Kadesh going back as far as the battle of Meggido several centuries earlier and in references to the capture of Mittani or Mariannu nobels in the Amarna letters.

Cause me to know the way of crossing over to Megiddo which is above it(??). Thou art a Maher skilled in the deeds of the brave! A Maher such as thou art is found (able) to march at the head of an army! O Mariannu, forward to shoot(?)! Behold the ///////// is in a ravine two thousand cubits deep, filled with boulders and pebbles. Thou drawest back(?), thou graspest the bow, thou dost //////. thy left hand, thou causest the great ones to look. Their eyes are good, thy hand grows weak(?). Abdt km Ari mhr nam. Thou makest the name of every Maher, officers of the land of Egypt. Thy name becomes like (that of) Qedjerdi, the chief of Isser, when the hyena found him in the balsam-tree.

The Mitanni are famed as horsemen. Hori refers to Amenemope as a mahr or courier, and a bowman some of whom are shown as mounted bowmen riding bareback in the inscriptions Ramesses II had carved to illustrate the battle

-Mariannu: noblemen

The Mitanni bowmen are labeled ibru in the inscrition (horse plural) and shown both riding and leading the glyph for horse.

Amenemhab captured two maryannu at Kadesh under Thutmose III: [He] captured [the city of] Kadesh; I was not absent from the place where he was; I brought off two men, lords (m-rA-j-nA), as living prisoners. I set them before the king. the Lord of the Two Lands, Thutmose (III), living forever. J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Part Two, §585

-hyena: Beinlich: wild animal in Syria. -Qedjerdi: qDrdi -Isser: isr

mahr = lords (m-rA-j-nA)= maryannu = mitanni

- The(?) narrow defile is infested(?) with Shosu concealed beneath the bushes; some of them are of four cubits or of five cubits, from head(??) to foot(?), fierce of face, their heart is not mild, and they hearken not to coaxing. Thou art alone, there is no helper(?) with thee, no army behind thee. Thou findest no ///////// to make for thee a way of crossing.

The number of references to im, people seven feet tall, is found throughout the Bible and illustrated in the article

-Shosu: Shasu, bedouins -cubit: half a metre (royal cubit 21", ordinary cubit 17.6", Biblical cubit 18")

basically giants like the Philistine Goliath

Thou decidest(?) (the matter) by marching onward, though thou knowest not the road. Shuddering(?) seizes thee, (the hair of) thy head stands up(?), thy soul is in thy hand. Thy path is filled with boulders and pebbles, without a passable track(??), overgrown with reeds and brambles, briers (?) and wolf's-pad. The ravine is on one side of thee, the mountain rises(?) on the other. On thou goest jolting(?), thy chariot on its side. Thou fearest to crush(?) thy horse. If it be thrown towards the abyss(?), thy collar-piece(?) is left bare(?), thy girth(?) falls. Thou unfastenest the horse so as to repair the collar-piece(?) at the top of the defile. Thou art not expert in the way of binding it together; thou knowest not how to tie(?) it. The ///////// is left where it is; the chariot is too heavy to bear the load of it(?). Thy heart is weary. Thou startest trotting(?). The sky is revealed. Thou fanciest that the enemy is behind thee; trembling seizes thee. Would that thou hadst a hedge of ///////// to put-upon the other side! The chariot is damaged(?) at the moment thou findest a camping-place(?). Thou perceivest the taste of pain! -chariot: cf. Chariots

The literal text says "The self abuse of Amenemope is much in the mouths of his followrs

Thou hast entered Joppa, and findest the flowers blossoming in their season. Thou forcest a way in(?) ///////// Thou findest the fair maiden who keeps watch over the gardens. She takes thee to herself for a companion, and surrenders to thee her charms.

-Joppa: Jaffa

Thou art recognized, and bearest witness (against thyself[?]). Thou art dismissed(?) from (the rank of) Maher. Thy shirt of fine linen of Upper Egypt, thou sellest it. Tell me how(??) thou liest every night, with a piece of woollen cloth(?) over thee. Thou slumberest, for thou art worn out. A ///////// takes away thy bow, thy knife for the belt, and thy quiver. Thy reins have been cut in the darkness. Thy horse is gone and is speeding(??) over the slippery ground. The road stretches before it. It smashes thy cart and makes thy ////////////; thy weapons fall to the ground, and are buried(?) in the sand; they become desert(?). Thy //////, begs the ///////// thy mouth: Give (me) food and water, for I have arrived safely. They turn a deaf ear, they do not listen, they do not heed thy tales. Thou makest thy way into the armoury; workshops surround thee; smiths and leather-workers are all about thee. They do all that thou wishest. They attend to thy chariot, so that it may cease from lying idle. Thy pole is newly shaped(?), its ////// are adjusted. They give leather covering(?) to thy collar-piece(?) //////. They supply thy yoke. They adjust(?) thy ////// (worked) with the chisel(?) to(?) the ///////// They give a ///////// (of metal) to thy whip; they fasten [to] it lashes. Forth thou goest quickly to fight on the open field, to accomplish the deeds of the brave!

XX. The first stations on the Syrian high-road. End of the Controversy, Conclusion. Good sir, thou honoured scribe, Maher cunning of hand, at the head of in front of the army, [I will describe to] thee the [lands] of the extremity of the land of Canaan. Thou answerest me neither good nor evil; thou returnest me no report. Come I will tell thee [of many things(??)]; [turn(?)] thy face(?) [towards(?)] the fortress of the Ways of Horus. I begin for thee with the House of Sese. Thou hast never trodden it; thou hast not eaten the fish of (the waters of) /////////; thou hast not bathed in them. Come prithee let me recount to thee Hetchin; where is its fortress? Come let me tell thee about the district of Buto of Sese, In(?) his house of victories(?) of Usimare, Sebel and Ibesqeb. Let me describe to thee the manner of Ainen; thou knowest not its position. Nekhes and Heberet, thou hast never seen them since thy birth.

-Canaan: Here tA n p knan, the Land of Canaan

-Ways of Horus: fortress on the road connecting north-eastern Egypt and southern Canaan. -House of Sese: Piramesse -Hetchin: HTin -Sebel: sbAl -Ibesqeb: ibsqb -Ainen: ainn -Nekhes: nxs -Heberet: Hbrt

O Mohar, where is Raphia? What is its wall like? How many leagues march is it to Gaza? Answer quickly! Render me a report, that I may call thee a Maher, that I may boast to others of thy name of Mariannu. So will I say to them(?). Thou art angry at the thing I [have] said to thee. I am experienced in every rank. My father taught me, he knew and instructed(??) (me) very often. I know how to hold the reins, beyond thy skill indeed! There is no brave man who can measure himself with me! I am initiated in the decrees(?) of Month. How marred is every (word) that cometh out over thy tongue! How feeble are thy sentences! Thou comest to me wrapt up in confusions, loaded with errors. Thou splittest words asunder, plunging ahead(?). Thou art not wearied of groping. Be strong! Forwards! Get thee along(?)! Thou dost not fall. What is it like not to know what one has reached? And how will it end? I retreat. Behold, I have arrived. Thy passion is soothed(??), thy heart is calm. Do not be angry /////////////// I curtail(?) for thee the end of thy letter, I answer(?) for thee what thou hast said. Thy narratives are collected upon my tongue, established upon my lips. They are confusing to hear; none who converses(?) (with thee) can unravel them. They are like the talk of a man of the Delta with a man of Elephantine. Nay, but thou art a scribe of the Great Gates, reporting the affairs of the lands, goodly and fair [to] him who sees it. Say not that I have made thy name stink before others(?). Behold, I have told thee the nature of the Maher; I have traversed for thee Retenu. I have marshalled before thee the foreign countries all at once, and the towns in their order. Attend(?) to me, and look at them calmly; (thus) thou shalt be found able to describe them, and shalt become a travelled(?) //////////// Source: Alan H. Gardiner Egyptian Hieratic Texts - Series I: Literary Texts of the New Kingdom, Part I, Leipzig 1911 -

Rktect (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this supposed to mean anything in particular? Doug Weller (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many or most of the references above are to a particular area in and around the mountains we call the Golan heights, the border of two watersheds refered to in the campaign literature as the djadi and upper retnu. people are still fighting over water rights there to this day.
The battle of Kadesh is often taken as being midway along the Orontes at tell mendi, but the discussion between Hori and Amenemope puts it further south somewhere along the northern border of Israel at the place called kadesh in the mountains in the campaign literature and there have never been any conflicts midway along the Orontes, that territory has always been pretty stable.
There are also references to mounted bowman both in the account of the scribes and the inscriptions labeled ibru.
Many of the secondary sources cited here go back more than a century. There has been some work done in the interim. As a moderator of sci.archaeology you should know all this Rktect (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume the illegible portion is some sort of Egyptian transliteration - Much of the rest is copied verbatim from [6] - though I'm still not entirely sure what the point is. Brando130 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The slashes are a convention for showing illegible text. You can find the blockquoted text in both the original Egyptian and various translations. The papyrus is essentially a wordsmithing duel in the form of a discussion of the battle by two of the scribes of Rammesses II. It presents a slightly different picture than the secondary sources.Rktect (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a reliable sources uses this to make a suggestion as to the location of Kadesh, we can use that. We can't use our intepretations of a primary source. Doug Weller (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you consider Gardiner a reliable source? How about Keneth Kitchen? Gardiner published a translation of the papyrus Anastasi in 1911, almost a century ago now, and used the place names and other information listed above to locate the battle.
[Papyrus Anastasi]

Papyrus Anastasi I (officially designated papyrus British Museum 10247) is an ancient Egyptian papyrus containing a satirical text used for the training of scribes during the Ramesside Period. One scribe, an army scribe, Hori, writes to his fellow scribe, Amenemope, in such a way as to ridicule the irresponsible and second-rate nature of Amenemope's work.

The letter gives examples of what a scribe was supposed to be able to deal with: calculating the number of rations which have to be doled out to a certain number of soldiers digging a lake or the quantity of bricks needed to erect a ramp of given dimensions [1], assessing the number of men needed to move an obelisk or erect a statue, organizing the supply of provisions for an army. In a long section Hori discusses the geography of the Mediterranean coast as far north as the Lebanon and the troubles which might beset a traveller there.
This papyrus is important to historians and Bible scholars above all for the information it supplies about towns in Syria and Canaan during the New Kingdom [2]* Alan H. Gardiner Egyptian Hieratic Texts - Series I: Literary Texts of the New Kingdom, Part I, Leipzig 1911* K. A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, Blackwell 20001. ^ Dieter Arnold The Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture, I.B.Tauris 2002, p.40 2. ^ Kitchen 2000, p.530.

Papyrus Anastasi I - the Papyrus Anastasi I is a satirical letter from the end of the 13 century BCE (late IX Dynasty). A royal official called Hori received a letter from a scribe named Amen-em-Opet, and responded in a sarcastic tone. The papyrus contains many geographical names and, therefore gives information relevant to the purpose of this study. The sites mentioned in the text are Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, Zareptah, Usu, Tyre the River Litani, Acco and Achshaph etc. From the Galilee the names Hazor, Hammath, Yenoam and Adamim are mentioned. The writer also passes by Rehob, Beth Shean, the Brook Qina, Megiddo, Wad Ara and Joppa. Several names occur in the following passage: “Pray teach me about the appearance of Qiyen, let me know Rehob, explain Beth Shean and Tirqa-El. The stream of Jordan, how is it crossed? Let me know the way to pass Megiddo, which is above it.”

Rktect (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already have " today thought to be identical to the ruins at Tell Nebi Mend," sourced by Kitchen, right? Doug Weller (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ramesside Inscriptions By Kenneth Anderson Kitchen That works if you take "Shore of the Amurru] as the Mediterranean Sea rather than Lake Chinereth. Unfortunately as Kitchen shows the place names from Ramesses campaign show the route follows narrow passes north through the Valley of the Conifers to the ridge of Kadesh.
Much as I like Ken Kitchen I will allow we will find he isn't right about everything. He engages in a lot of [WP:OR] original research, as do Breasted and Gardiner for that matter.
That said I like his approach. He's right to point out that the Orontes was forded by the division of Pre south of Shabtuna with Ptah south of that and Seth still at the shore of the Amurru. He's wrong not to point out that the Egyption idiom is not "to ford: but :to come forth" from. He's right to point out that the Amurru territory is in and around hazor, well south of the Orontes. he's right to equate the Near'in with the Mitanni. He's right to place the route as through the upper Jordan river through the Bekka to the Orontes. He describes the Littanni and Orontes as forming the border between Lebanon and Syria and the land between the headwaters of the Jordan and Orontes rivers as forming the northern and southern borders of Aram to the southwest of Damascus.
He's right about pointing out that axis of march is north south, not west to east. Kitchen points out the Division of Ptah was 2 iter's to the south when the Pharoah was at Kadesh and references the Payrus Anastasi for the place names. He likes locating the battle of Kadesh at Tell Nebi Mend because it has a stella of Seti I, but has some problems getting there. He doesn't seem to know where Shabtuna is but decides to locate it at Ribla. He does note why there are objections to this.
The first issues Kitchen addresses is where to locate the mountains of Kadesh. He choses a location nearer the Amurru of Hazor and the Golan, west of Damascus on Mt Hermon; at the entrance to the valley of Cedar which he identifies as the Bekka valey. He says Breasted is wrong to place shabtuna near the krak de chevaliers. If you look at the places named Shab (night) they cluster along the border of Lebanon from the coast through just above Hazor over toward Damascus. Kitchen shows that we come forth from the Orontes east of Beirut at the start of the Bekka valley, whereas tel Nebi mend is at its end, considerably past Baalbek.
He places the position of the Pharoahs camp in the mountains between Beiruit and Damascus a days march north of Shabtuna in Aram. Heading toward the Orontes from lake Chinnereth you reach modern Kiryat Shamona (Shabat una) after 28 miles.
Kitchen gives the iter as 6.5 miles, (Gardiner 7 miles, Herodotus 7.5 Greek or Roman miles, and 11.1 km). One days march is probably closer to one iter in the narrow passes in the mountains than the 13-15 miles he allows from descriptions of chariot movement on the plains.
If in the narrow mountain passes the armies are stretched out an iter each then there are at least 28 miles between the foremost of Ramesses and the hindmost of Seth. The line of march from the shore of Amurru at Chinereth to a place where Ramesses can cross the border and come forth from the headwaters of the Orontes occurs after 42 miles as Ramesses enters the Bekka valley.
Kitchen's correct to include several different conjectures about the route in his discussion and list his objections. He's right about dating through textual artifacts like the sequence of blessings and curses on contracts and treaties, the price of slaves and the geopolitical situation.
We have a picture of the "Shashu spies" in the article and a description of them in the papyrus Anastasi. They are giants. We can map out where there are references to "giants" and it turns out they are the im, the indiginous people of Canaan. Most references to them are in northern Canaan in Aram, northeast of Chinereth southwest of Damascus which took Hazor about this time. The next reference is to the Nearin or Nahrin; the Mittani from Aram-Nahrin, the Amurru horsemen of the mountains. The capital of Amurru is Hazor located near lake Chinerreth. The region involved is in the mountains of Northern Palestine. Merom or Meri Amon is the Golan heights. The discussion of places, peoples, the axis of march and distances in the Kitchen article is pretty good.
The way I'd like to see secondary sources used would be as Kitchen uses them to incorporate current updates from active archaeologists, historians and other researchers. Comparing what we know now with what we thought we knew can be enlightening. Looking at the old standby's and the primary sources with the new information in an interdisciplinary approach is a technigue used by the Dothan's at Dor with excellent results.
Pluses - Kitchen uses the papyrus Anastasi place names to provide a lot of information.
Negatives - Sometimes archaeologists hype their digs by linking them to a well known event.
Gradual scientific reduction of bias in the data - Assumptions change slowly over time as other archeologists point out that for example there may be a gap of a hundred miles between an event and a site.
Tell Nebi Mend is on a plain 130 miles north of lake Chinereth, the shore of the Amurru, and more than a single days travel from the location of Kadesh in the mountains. Rktect (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{unindent} I think there is a misunderstanding here. We expect people like Kitchen, etc. to do original research. That's the role of an academic/reliable source. That is absolutely no problem, as that is what Wikipedia looks for in many cases, original research by reliable sources. We can report what Kitchen says. What we can't do is comment on what we think about what Kitchen says. You write "The way I'd like to see secondary sources used would be as Kitchen uses them to incorporate current updates from active archaeologists, historians and other researchers. Comparing what we know now with what we thought we knew can be enlightening." That is definitely what Wikipedia policy is against, a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Doug Weller (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kenneth Kitchen serves as a good model of what sort of credentials constitute a reliable academic source, and how a reliable academic source often goes to primary sources to evaluate the arguments of other secondary sources.

what is this about please? If it is just about the location of Kadesh, take it to Talk:Kadesh. This is the article about the battle. --dab (𒁳) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is about the battle of Kadesh, and the sources for it which as Kitchen points out substantively disagree. Kitchen cites Breasted, Faulkner, Gardiner and others along with texts like the papyrus Anastasi as to where the battle was fought, who participated, what the disposition of forces was and what the consequence of the battle was.

Rktect (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's right. I'm not sure why you think it useful to point it out. I have no problem with using Kitchen as one source. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further up the page you include a numbber of sources Kitchen references but neglect the papyrus anastasi. The papyrus anastasi though referenced by Kitchen in his selection of tell nebi mendi as the site of the battle does not support this.

From the Galilee the names Hazor, Hammath, Yenoam and Adamim are mentioned. The writer also passes by Rehob, Beth Shean, the Brook Qina, Megiddo, Wad Ara and Joppa. Several names occur in the following passage: “Pray teach me about the appearance of Qiyen, let me know Rehob, explain Beth Shean and Tirqa-El. The stream of Jordan, how is it crossed? Let me know the way to pass Megiddo, which is above it.

” None of those are near nebi mendi Rktect (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it a valid question why so many of the battles with Kadesh mention Rehob, Beth Shean, Yenoam, and Hazor separate from the Brook Qina, Megiddo, Wad Ara and Joppa as perhaps two different routes of engagement, one with Lebanon and the other with Syria as allied with Kadesh?Rktect (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Video are are not valid references[edit]

"Ancient Discoveries: Egyptian Warfare". Is used over 7 times as a reference yet this is what that link brings up [7]a tv schedule. I cannot verify the text, what is it doing here? Are there no books? I think this reference will fail verification if put through the process. -- (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Error in battle image caption[edit]

Battle of Kadesh II.png contains an error: "Ramses leads his chariots to assault the Egyptian camp" I probably don't need to explain what's wrong with this, amusing as it is. It clearly should say "assist the Egyptian camp" or "assault the Hittites" (as the Italian version seems to). I'd fix it myself but I don't know how to update files. (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that also, I will send the dude that designed it a message. No one can change it since it is an image (i mean without using Photoshop).-- (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chariot runners?[edit]

It seems Ancient Egyptians used chariot runners (foot soldiers to run along side the chariot) as part of their use of chariots in warfare. Should that be included in the article? Should it also change the number of men Egyptians had in the battle? For 2000 chariots it would be 2000 chariot runners. Super Knuckles (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I have read in one of Osprey Publishing's books, chariot runners were supposed to captured and man abandoned enemy and friendly chariots. However, it didn't specify they ran alongside the chariots (Egyptian chariots were known for being even faster than other empires' designs), and it didn't necessitate the number of chariot runner to have standard relevance to the size of the friendly chariot force. ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  14:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

terrible discrepancy[edit]

How did this error get through editing? The sidebox says the date of the battle was 1274 BCE but the article says both that its date was 2014 BCE, and that it happened AFTER Hyksos expulsion, which radiocarbon dating places near the destruction of Thera in 1628 BCE. So the battle CANNOT have taken place in 2014. Was somebody doing a global replace and failed to edit later? (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temp vandalism or gross mistake by one-time editor -- quickly fixed. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ff — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ancient Discoveries: Egyptian Warfare as a ref[edit]

Ancient Discoveries: Egyptian Warfare ref, this ref is a little problem. It is a video. Now I have advocated that we should use video as ref from time to time, but I met with some objections. Can anyone elaborate on its usage here. ?--Inayity (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Kadesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Kadesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Kadesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is "BAR III"[edit]

Used as a ref for the date in our lede. Found references to "BAR iii" in several online texts, but can't seem to track what/who this refers to. Anyone? - Snori (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snori A reference to Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. III I guess. That volume indeed encompasses the 19th Dynasty during which the battle took place. Khruner (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank! - Snori (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Best Documented Battle in all of Ancient History"[edit]

So ends the lede. But is this true? Likely the most well-documented battle before classical antiquity, true, but can these records really be held up to the grand historians of later Greek & Roman battles (for which the sources are generally more numerous and more detailed)? This "best documented" phrase is used for the same Battle on other pages but as far as I can tell all mentions originate with the same Ockinga fellow, who may have intended his remark for the Bronze Age specifically, seeing as how all of his work deals with Ancient Egypt. Samuel Enderby (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just came across this. One source is a bit thin for making a claim this bold in Wikipedia's voice. Given the age of the source I dont think it's even worth attributing to Ockinga; I think it should just be removed. (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have removed it. I could see a case being made for Kadesh even against the well-known battles of the Iron Age; those battles often aren't as well documented as we might imagine, and I don't know if any of them have as many sources as close to the event as Kadesh does. But I don't have access to Ockinga's paper and don't know if he makes that case, and you're certainly right that it's too strong a claim to state without qualification in Wikipedia's voice. A. Parrot (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]