Hmm...I'm not sure. Khadesh says: "This first campaign against the Hittites (1300-1299 BC) ended in an Egyptian retreat after the violent battle at Kadesh in Syria, during which Ramses narrowly escaped capture, mainly thanks to the intervention of a troop contingent from Amurru", which refers to this article, but maybe they are the same (I'm not sure it's possible to be precise about battles like this, I mean we don't even know when Kadesh happened, really). Adam Bishop 17:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
it's the same, and has been fixed on 29 Jul. Battle of Khadesh is a redirect now, though, but it should not be, since it is just a misspelling. dab 16:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mispellings are okay as redirects if there is a reasonable chance someone would type it in a link, or search for it, and that is certainly the case here, as we had two different articles for awhile :) Adam Bishop 19:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is there any information on it which could be merged into this article? how about cutting and pasting it into the discussion here Rktect 20:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The following references from the Egyptian campaigns of the 18th and 19th Dynasties seem to suggest Kadesh and the border of the djadi and upper retnu is in the mountains between the headwaters of the
the Orontes and Jordan.
The Asiatic Campaigns of Thut-mose III: The Armant Stela (15th c. B.C.E.)ANET., p.234
Live the Horus: Mighty Bull, Appearing in Thebes; the Two Goddesses: Enduring of Kingship, like Re in Heaven; the Horus of Gold: Majestic of Appearances, Mighty of Strength; the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of Making Offerings: Men-kheper-Re; the Son of Re, of his Body: Thut-mose Heqa-Maat, beloved of Montu, Lord of Thebes, Residing in Hermonthis, living forever.
Year 22, 2nd month of the second season, day 10. Summary of the deeds of valor and victory which this good god performed, being every effective deed of heroism, beginning from the first generation; that which the Lord of the Gods, the Lord of Hermonthis, did for him: the magnification of his victories, to cause that his deeds of valor be related for millions of years to come, apart from the deeds of heroism which his majesty did at all times. If (they) were to be related all together by their names, they would be (too) numerous to put them into writing
His majesty made no delay in proceeding to the land of Djahi, to kill the treacherous ones who were in it and to give things to those who were loyal to him; witness, indeed, [their] names, each [country] according to its time. His majesty returned on each occasion, when his attack had been effected in valor and victory, so that he caused Egypt to be in its condition as (it was) when Re was in it as king. [Year 22, 4th month of the second season, day... Proceeding] from Memphis, to slay the countries of the wretched Retenu, on the first occasion of victory. It was his majesty who opened its roads and foxed its every way for his army, after it had made [rebellion, gathered in Megid]do. His majesty entered upon that road which becomes very narrow,' as the first of his entire army, while every country had gathered, standing prepared at its mouth. ... The enemy quailed, fleeing headlong to their town, together with the prince who was in... (15)... to them, beseeching [breath], their goods upon their backs. His majesty returned in gladness of heart, with this entire land as vassal... [Asia]tics, coming at one time, bear-ing [their] tribute...See also fuller description from the Temple of Karnak and similar type of description from the Barkal stela. ANET., pp. 234-238.
Almost all subsequent campaigns were directed against rebellious cities in Upper Retenu (that is, Syria) and not Lower Retenu, Djahi. The city of Kadesh and the kingdom of Mitanni were generally the focus of the king's military campaigns. See: ANET., pp. 238-242.
"A Syrian Captive Colony" ANET., pp. 248. The settlement of the fortification of Men-khepru-Re (Thothmosis IV) with the Syrians (=Kharu)[of] his majesty's capturing in the town of Gez[er].
Campaign of Seti I in Northern Palestine," ANET., pp.253-254. Year 1, 3rd month of the third season, day 10. Live the Horus: Mighty Bull, Appearing in Thebes, Making the Two Lands to Live; the Two Goddesses: Repeating Births, Mighty of Arm, Repelling the Nine Bows; the Horus of Gold: Repeating Appearances, Mighty of Bows in All Lands; the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands: Men-maat-Re [Ir]-en-Re; the Son of Re, Lord of Diadems: Seti Mer-ne-Ptah,(full titulary of Seti I) beloved of Re-Har-akhti, the great god. The good god, potent with his arm, heroic and valiant like Montu, rich in captives, (5) knowing (how to) place his hand, alert wherever he is; speaking with his mouth, acting with his hands, valiant leader of his army, valiant warrior in the very heart of the fray, a Bastet terrible in combat, penetrating into a mass of Asiatics and making them prostrate, crushing the princes of Retenu, reaching the (very) ends of (m) him who transgresses against his way. He causes to retreat the princes of Syria (Kharu), all the boastfulness of whose mouth was (so) great. Every foreign country of the ends of the earth, their princes say: "Where shall we go ?" They spend the night giving testimony in his name, saying: "Behold it, behold it? in their hearts. It is the strength of his father Amon that decreed to him valor and victory. On this day one came to speak to his majesty, as follows: (15) "The wretched foe who is in the town of Hamath is gathering to himself many people, while he is seizing the town of Beth-Shan. Then there will be an alliance with them of Pahel. He does not permit the Prince of Rehob to go outside." (Generally all the cities are
near Beth-Shan.) Thereupon his majesty sent the first army of Amon, (named) "Mighty of Bows," to the town of Hamath, the first army of the (20) Re, (named) "Plentiful of Valor," to the town of Beth-Shan, and the first army of Seth, (named) "Strong of Bows," to the town of Yanoam. (See Karnak
inscription on felling trees near Yanoam.) When the space of a day had passed, they were overthrown to the glory of his majesty, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Men-maat-Re; the Son of Re: Seti Mer-ne-Ptah, given life."
The alliance seems to be Retnu, Kharu, Hamath, Pahel, Yanoam all near Beth Shean and well south of Kadesh
Campaigns of Seti I in Asia ANET., pp.254-55. Temple of Karnak
A= Campaign(s) in Djahi
Year 1 of the Renaissance, and of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands: Men-maat-Re (Seti I), given life. Then one came to say to his majesty: "The foe belonging to the Shasu are plotting (5) rebellion. Their tribal chiefs are gathered in one place, waiting on the mountain
ranges of Kharu (see Beth Shan stela). They have taken to clamoring and quarreling, one of them killing his fellow. They have no regard for the laws of the palace." The heart of his majesty--life, prosperity, health!--was glad at it. (10)
Now as for the good god, he exults at undertaking combat; he delights at an attack on him; his heart is satisfied at the sight of blood. He cuts off the heads of the perverse of heart. He loves (15) an instant of trampling more than a day of jubilation. His majesty kills them all at one time, and
leaves no heirs among them. He who is spared by his hand is a living prisoner, carried off to Egypt.
C= Campaign(s) in Djahi
(Somewhere in Palestine Seti I attacked a fortified place, "the town of the Canaan," which we cannot locate. As the accompanying text indicates, this was on the same expedition as that of the scenes just mentioned.)
Year 1 of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Men-maat-Re. The desolation which the mighty arm of Pharaoh--life, prosperity, health !--made among the foe belonging to the Shasu from the fortress of Sile to the Canaan. His majesty [pre]vailed over them like a fierce lion. They were made into
corpses throughout their valleys, stretched out in their (own) blood, like that which has never been.
(Another scene shows the felling of trees around the "town of Yanoam." See Beth Shan stela. A similar scene mentions the felling of trees in Lebanon)... Lebanon. Cutting down [cedar for] the great barque upon the river,"[Amon]-U[ser-h]et,"~ as well as for the great flagpoles of Amon...
D = Campaign(s) in Djahi
The return [of] his majesty from Upper Retenu,having extended the frontiers of Egypt. The plunder which his majesty carried off from these Shasu, whom his majesty himself captured in the year 1 of the Renaissance.
E = Campaign(s) in Upper Retenu
Other scenes show Seti I engaged with the Hittites in Syria. He is shown attacking a mountainous settlement, "the town of Kadesh." in Syria.The going up which Pharaoh--life, prosperity, health !----made to desolate the land of Kadesh and the land of Amurru.*
(Either on this expedition or on a subsequent campaign, the pharaoh came into military competition with the powerful state of Hatti. He is shown in battle, with the legend:)The wretched land of the Hittites, among whom his majesty--life, prosperity, health !--made a great slaughter.On his return to Egypt, the pharaoh enjoyed the usual triumph and made the customary gift acknowledgement to the imperial god Amon.)
[Presentation of] tribute by the good god to his father Amon-Re, Lord of the [Thrones] of [the Two Lands, at] his return from the country of Hatti, having annihilated the rebellious countries and crushed the Asi-atics in their places...The great princes of the wretched Retenu, whom his majesty carried off by his victories from the country of Hatti, to fill the workhouse of his father Amon-Re, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, according as he had given valor against the south and victory against the north...
Beth-Shan Stelae of Seti I ANET., p.254. BASOR (1952): 24-32. On this day,lo (10) [one came to tell] his [majesty]: The Apiru of Mount Yarmuta(identified by Albright as at or near Belvoir, 10 km from Beth Shan), with Teyer..., [have ari]sen in attack upon the Asiatics of Rehem. Then [his majesty] said: How can these wretched Asiatics think [of taking] their [arms] for further disorder?... (16) ... Then his majesty commanded a certain number of people from his [infantry and his] numerous chariotry that their faces turn back to the foreign country Djahi. The space of two days elapsed, [and they returned in triumph from] the country Ye ..., having [their] levy [consisting 0f ]living [captives] as plunder ....
RAMESIS II (Late Bronze Age, 13th c. B.C.E.): "The Asiatic Campaigning of Ramses II" ANET., pp.255-256. Now then, his majesty had prepared (8) his infantry, his chariotry, and the Sherden of his majesty's cap-turing, whom he had carried off by the victories of his arm, equipped with all their
weapons, to whom the orders of combat had been given. His majesty journeyed northward, his infantry and chariotry with him. He began to march on the good way in the year 5, 2nd month of the third season, day 9, (when) his majesty passed the fortress of Sile. [He] was mighty like Montu when he
goes forth, (so that) every foreign country was trembling before him, their chiefs were presenting their tribute, and all the rebels were coming, bowing down through fear of the glory of his majesty.
His infantry went on the narrow passes as if on the highways of Egypt. Now after days had passed
after this, then his majesty was in Ramses Meri-Amon, the town which is in the Valley of the Cedar. His majesty proceeded northward. After his majesty reached the mountain range of Kadesh, then his majesty went forward like his father Montu, Lord of Thebes, and he crossed (12) the ford of the Orontes, with the first division of Amon (named) "He Gives Victory to User-maat-Re Setep-en-Re. His majesty reached the town of Kadesh ....Now the wretched foe belonging to Hatti, with the numerous foreign countries which were with him, was waiting hidden and ready on the northeast of thetown of Kadesh,
while his majesty was alone by himself (17) with his retinue.
The division of Amon was on the march behind him;
the division of Re was crossing the ford in a district south of the town of Shabtuna,
at the dis-stance of one iter from the place where his majesty was ;
the division of Ptah was on the south of the town of Arnaim; and
the division of Seth was marching on the road.
His majesty had formed the first ranks of battle of all the leaders of his army, while they were (still) on the shore in the land of Amurru ....
Year 5, 3rd month of the third season, day 9, under the majesty of (Ramses II). When his majesty was in Djahi on his second victorious campaign, the goodly awakening in life, prosperity, and health was at the tent of his majesty on the mountain range south of Kadesh. After this, at the time of
dawn, his majesty appeared like the rising of Re, and he took the adornments of his father Montu. The lord proceeded northward, and his majesty arrived at a vicinity south of the town of Shabtuna.... [add full text of battle here]
B. LATER CAMPAIGNING
The town which his majesty desolated in the year 8, Merom.
The town which his majesty desolated in the year 8, Salem.
The town which his majesty desolated on the mountain of
Beth-Anath, Kerep (Palestine ?).
The town which his majesty desolated in the land of Amurru, Deper (region of Tunip in Syria?).
The town which his majesty desolated, Acre.
The wretched town which his majesty took when it was wicked, Ashkelon.
It says: "Happy is he who acts in fidelity to thee, (but) woe (to) him who transgresses. thy frontier! Leave over a heritage, so that we may relate thy strength to every ignorant foreign country!
Beth-Shan Stelae of Ramses II ANET., p.254. BASOR (1952): 24-32. Year 9, 4th month of the second season, day 1 ... When day had broken, he made to retreat the Asiatics .... They all come bowing down to him, to his palace of life and satisfaction, Per-Ramses-Meri-Amon-the-Great of Victories (the
capital in Delta)...
Rktect 18:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Rktect, I don't know what you want others to do with the sections you added above. As far as I know, the location of Kadesh isn't disputed. Besides, copying the work of others, even just to a talk page, isn't a good idea. Can you explain the reasons for all this material? --A D Monroe III00:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
The above is for purposes of discussion. The place names are all clearly south of the Litani in the djadi not retnu and the Egyptian campaign accounts all place Kadesh in the mountains so if that is what you mean by undisputed then I would agree.
The text uses the Egyptian phrase "come forth from" the Orontes not ford it. There is no word or phrase for "crossing the ford" of the Orontes in Egyptian.
The disputed territory would be the watershed of the Orontes (retnu) and the Jordan (djadi).
Bordering the zone of confontation is Lebanon with Sideon, Tyre and Byblos having interests to the west of the cedar mountain and Syria and the Mitanni remaining interested parties to the east.
Ramesses and his armies are travelling in single file as they go through the mountains not spread out as on a plain and that is why the ambush works so well. Rktect 01:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
with its NOR policy, WP is hardly the place to argue circumstatial evidence from opaque swathes of text. If some scholar proposed another location for Kadesh, that's cool, cite author, book title / ISBN and page; if not, we are clearly in OR territory. dab(ᛏ)13:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
[www.sydgram.nsw.edu.au/CollegeSt/extension/may01/Kadesh.pdf Here is a scholar M.M. Bishop] offering you a translation of the graphic to the right. I quote only his cites but recommend it as a good read if you are interested.
tr. M. M. Bishop In this paper I attempt a translation of the first 13 lines of the record of the battle as inscribed on the temple of Rameses II at Abu Simbel. The text starts at the top right in the figure below and reads down the columns from right to left. The transcription used is that published by Desroches-Noblecourt et al.[1971]
Acknowledgement
My thanks to Mr F. Amati for proof-reading this paper and for his helpful suggestions.
References:
Allen J. P., 2000, Middle Egyptian, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
J. H. Breasted, 1988, Ancient Records of Egypt:Historical Documents Volume3, Histories and
Mysteries of Man Ltd, London pp122-157
Clayton P. A., 1999, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, Thames and Hudson, London
Collier M. and Manley, B., 1998, How to Read Egyptian Hieroglyphs, British Museum Press
Desroches-Noblecourt C. et al.,1971, Grand Temple d’Abou-Simbel: la bataille de Qadech:
descriptions et inscriptions et photographies, Le Caire: Centre de documentation et d’études sur
l’ancienne Egypte
Gardiner A. H., 1978, Egyptian Grammar (3rd Ed), Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
Gardiner A. H., 1960, The Kadesh inscriptions of Rameses II, Oxford University Press, UK
Langdon S. and Gardiner A. H., 1920, The treaty of alliance between Hattusili, King of the
Hittites, and the Pharaoh Rameses II of Egypt, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology VI pp173-205
Montet P. 1968, Lives of the Pharaohs, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London
Ockinga B. G., 1987, On the Interpretation of the Kadesh Record, Chronique d’Egypte, 62, pp38-48
Ockinga B. G., 1998, A Concise Grammar of Middle Egyptian, Phillip von Zabern, Mainz
They did, I did. Citing ANET is not exactly OR territory.
THOTHMOSIS III (Late Bronze Age, 15th c. B.C.E.):The Asiatic Campaigns of Thut-mose III: The Armant Stela (15th c. B.C.E.)ANET., p.234 ...the land of Djahi, ...to slay the countries of the wretched Retenu, ...gathered in Megid]do... The enemy quailed, fleeing headlong to their town, together with the prince who was in...with this entire land as vassal... [Asia]tics, coming at one time, bear-ing [their] tribute...similar type of description from the Barkal stela. ANET., pp. 234-238...rebellious cities in Upper Retenu (that is, Syria) and not Lower Retenu, Djahi. The city of Kadesh and the kingdom of Mitanni were generally the focus of the king's military campaigns. See: ANET., pp. 238-242. "The Asiatic Campaigning of Ramses II" ANET., pp.255-256. " Kadesh in the mountains" SETI I (Late Bronze Age, 13th c. B.C.E.)Campaign of Seti I in Northern Palestine," ANET., pp.253-254. Year 1,Seti Mer-ne-Ptah,...crushing the princes of Retenu,...He causes to retreat the princes of Syria (Kharu), ..."The wretched foe who is in the town of Hamath is gathering to himself many people, while he is seizing the town of Beth-Shan. Then there will be an alliance with them of Pahel. He does not permit the Prince of Rehob to go outside." (Generally all the cities are near Beth-Shan.) Thereupon his majesty sent the first army of Amon, (named) "Mighty of Bows," to the town of Hamath, the first army of the (20) Re, (named) "Plentiful of Valor," to the town of Beth-Shan, and the first army of Seth, (named) "Strong of Bows," to the town of Yanoam. (See Karnak inscription on felling trees near Yanoam.) The alliance is Retnu, Kharu, Hamath, Pahel, Yanoam all near Beth Shean well south of Kadesh. Campaigns of Seti I in Asia ANET., pp.254-55. Temple of Karnak. A= Campaign(s) in Djahi ...the Shasu are plotting (5) rebellion. Their tribal chiefs are gathered in one place, waiting on the mountain ranges of Kharu C= Campaign(s) in Djahi in Palestine Seti I attacked a fortified place, "the town of the Canaan,"...the foe belonging to the Shasu from the fortress of Sile to the Canaan. (Another scene shows the felling of trees around the "town of Yanoam." See Beth Shan stela. A similar scene mentions the felling of trees in Lebanon)... Lebanon. D = Campaign(s) in Djahi...from Upper Retenu,having extended the frontiers of Egypt. The plunder which his majesty carried off from these Shasu, E = Campaign(s) in Upper Retenu...Seti I engaged with the Hittites in Syria. He is shown attacking a mountainous settlement, "the town of Kadesh." in Syriathe land of Kadesh and the land of Amurru...The wretched land of the Hittites,...the country of Hatti, having annihilated the rebellious countries and crushed the Asi-atics in their places...The great princes of the wretched Retenu, whom his majesty carried off by his victories from the country of Hatti,...Beth-Shan Stelae of Seti I ANET., p.254. BASOR (1952): 24-32. ...The Apiru of Mount Yarmuta(identified by Albright as at or near Belvoir, 10 km from Beth Shan), with Teyer..., [have ari]sen in attack upon the Asiatics of Rehem. ...to the foreign country Djahi. Also for that matter Judges IV refering to Kadesh in the context of the battle of Megido. and the original Rktect 23:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. As an encyclopedia, we can't judge which of conflicting viewpoints are "correct"; evaluating claims and coming to a conclusion would be original research on our part. There's no reason to cut and paste reference text here. There's nothing we can do with it.
If you think a commonly held viewpoint is missing from the article, just add it along side the other viewpoints, and cite your references. --A D Monroe III 23:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
That's fine but not quite that simple. There should be some consensus as to what should and shouldn't be included under the topic of "The Battle of Kadesh". Maybe we could put the references to Egyptian "battles with Kadesh" including both the campaigns of the 18th and 19th dynasty under the main topic as a footnote so as to not overwhelm the original article? Rktect 02:07, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Those campaigns aren't really notable, but mentioning them in the article is okay. --A D Monroe III 03:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how you can really address the topic without establishing both the set and setting. In the time of Ramesses II the war of which "The Battle of Kadesh" is a part has been ongoing and continuous at least through the 18th and 19th dynasties (c 1550 BB - 1285 BC)or almost three centuries.
Its possible that it goes back as far the accounts of Sinuhe of conflicts with Retnu in the mountains abutting the Litanni river in the 12th dynasty. In the interim you have the Hyksos occupation of Egypt which appears to be a sort of a gradual build up of trading emporia in the delta into an ursurpation of the royal perogatives in the delta region.
The principle escalations are tied to two dramatic technological breakthroughs in communications and control enabling the expansion of kingdoms into empires. The first is the rise of the sea peoples as an international trading confederacy whose networked monopolizations of trade can rival anything the land folk can muster, and the second is the first appearence of horses with riders.
Both international shipping and horses with riders can be used to deliver messages, rapidly transport troops, expand trading links and generally facilitate the communications and control that make empire possible.
Kadesh is a player whose importance is greatly underestimated. We hear lots about the Hittites or men of retnu and about the Mittanni, Amurru and Egyptians and their connections to Syria, Canaan and Lebanon, but as Kadesh is specifically mentioned as a foe whose very ability to survive three centuries in this border region attests to its having some ability to defend itself it would be interesting to examine what we actually know about it. In particular I am interested in connections between the mTn or Mitanni and the ktn or people of Kadesh both of whom appear to be distinct in being portrayed as tall, with long hair, sails, wings, horses and winged horses or ships whose stems are carved in a horses head and may carry horses.
Its king is present at Megiddo where he is allied to the enemies of Egypt. In the illustrations of the battles of Kadesh there are a couple of indications that the people of Kadesh have a walled city. The Biblical descriptions of it as a city of refuge make it sound like it exists on the border as some sort of strong neutral state like the swiss.
There are other indications that it is considered a bamath or high place, possibly located at the headwaters of the Orontes where people come to be made Kodesh or holy, bathed by sacred prostitutes or Quadeshu. kadash [Hb] hallowed, sacred; a temple prostitute in a pagan religion.[1] Cf. qadhesh. kadēshim [Hb] pagan temple prostitutes; the plural of kadash. The Vulgate mistranslated kadeshim as effeminati in all places, except one.[2] Cf. qĕdĕshīm. kadosh [Hb] qadesh kadosha [Hb] qedeshah.
There is a stele showing k t ur t det goddess k t3 standing on a lion making peace between Reshep and Min over Anat. [Qeteah] In the Biblical version of the battle of Megiddo it is the judge Deborah who gets Barak to bring the men of Kadesh from their mountian.
The theme of a goddess standing on a lion includes
1.) With 10 arms (India Maa Durga, Mahishasura)
2.) With 8 arms and a pair of wings (Sumer/Akkad Ishtar, Astarte)
3.) Associated with a tree, or a pole or seven branches of a tree
(Canaanite Asherah, Ashtaroth, Menorah)
4.) Wearing a distinctive headdress (uraeus) or hairdo (Egyptian [knt]
Hathor) with a crescent moon
5.) With a crescent moon, sun, star or fortification (Hurrian, Hepit, Hebat)
6.) Associated with holyness (Kodesh, Baalat, Deborah)
7.) Associated with high places, holy waters, purification and absolution
(Kadesh, Qudshu)
8.) Associated with sacred temple priestesses or Quadeshu, Artemis, Aphrodite,
9.) Associated with wisdom (Asherah, Athena)
10.) Holding snakes instead of drugs and herbs (Minoan Aphrodite)
11.) As a seated godess of war with shield and spear (Hittite Anat)
12.) As a seated goddess of peace and widom with Harp (Amorite, MAR TU)
13.) As a seated goddess with Harp representing justice found in law and
order (Ashtorah)
Getting back to the battle, this is a chariot battle involving 10's of thousands of iron rimmed chariots but some of the riders are riding bareback and appear to be armed with bows and serving the function of messengers as ipw (foreign) pdty (bowmen)or ipwty (messengers) mounted on ibrw (horses). Rktect 13:58, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
ANET gives year V, Baines and Malik give c 1285 BC for The Battle of Kadesh, (which gets about twice as many Google hits as 1275). I'm curious who has recently written anything citing it as c 1275. Isn't that after the date of the treaty? Rktect 02:25, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
The early Ancient Egyptian dates are all disputed. I have some references that give the year as 1294 BC. See Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC) for an example of the problem and possible way to resolve this. --A D Monroe III 03:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
The battle took place in the fifth year of Ramesses II. This is the most definite thing known about the date of the battle. The most common dates given for Ramesses II are 1279-1212 BC. As such, 1275/4 BC would be the date for the battle. If we are giving 1279 BC as the most likely date for Ramesses's accession, which we are, and which we should do, it makes no sense to give 1285 as the date for the battle. johnk 06:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I have no idea where 1294 BC would come from. The dates generally given for the beginning of Ramesses II's reign are 1304, 1290, and 1279. That makes for dates for the battle of 1300/1299, 1286/1285, and 1275/1274. johnk 06:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
can somebody state which chronology the article is using now? A simple "1275 (short chronology)" would do (if it is, in fact, short chronology). dab(ᛏ) 08:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious what short chronology it is we are talking about. The versions I'm familiar with use the correspondence from the Kassite king Burna Buriash II c 1359-1333 and the Egyptians where he protests against having to deal directly with Amenophis IV / Akhenaten whose reign Baines and Ma'lik give as c 1353-1335 BC. Baines and Ma'lek and Michael Roaf's Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia both give the reign of Ramesses II as c 1290-1224 BC. CUP, Wikipedia and Answers .com give it as Ramses II, d. 1225 B.C. Ramses was not the heir to the throne but usurped it from his brother. He reigned for 67 years (1292–1225 B.C.). Rktect 14:23, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
1292–1225 *what chronology*? WP has 1279 – 1212 BC, so that's 13 years off. That's fine, but you have to say which chronology you are using. "short chronology" means "Hammurabi 1728 BC–1686 BC". I am not sure how this ties in with conventional Egyptian chronology. This isn't about being right, mind you, this is about stating which bloody chronology you are using. dab(ᛏ) 14:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I've no idea what the name of the chronology is. If I inappropriately used "low chronology," I am sorry. 1279 BC is the low date, of three, for the beginning of the reign of Ramesses II. The three dates generally given for the beginning of his reign are 1304, 1290, and 1279 BC. At present, the most usual one to be given is 1279 BC. This is given, for instance by Clayton in Chronicle of the Pharaohs, by the Digital Egypt page run by UCL, and by most of the most recent sources. Obviously, it is not settled, and there are supporters of other dates. But this is by far the dominant dating used in the most recent scholarship, and it is the one used by wikipedia in Ramesses II, Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt, in List of pharaohs, and elsewhere. Given that our dating of the Battle of Kadesh is entirely based on it occurring in Year V of Ramesses II, I don't see why it should be controversial to use the most commonly used date for Ramesses's accession as the basis for calculating that, rather than an older calculation that is no longer so well-accepted. johnk 16:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
you did nothing wrong; it's just that somebody with detailed knowledge should discuss this somewhere on the Egyptian chronology article, so that we can point to it, and know what specialists call this chronology. I don't think it's an issue of short vs. middle chronology, since they are 64 years apart. The 13 years must be an issue within Egytian chronology itself, before it is even aligned with Mesopotamian chronology. Strangely, Egyptian chronology says "there is absolutely no doubt for Egyptologists that Ramses I reigned in 1322 BC" while Ramesses I has "1320-1318 BC, 1295-1294 BC, or 1292-1290 BC", i.e. none of these align with the "undisputed" 1322 date. I gather from this that there is a dispute of ca. 28 years within Egyptology. I don't know how this ties in with the "64 years" dispute of Mesopotamian chronology. This battle must be decisive for the question, since it aligns Ramses II with Muwatalli. Muwatalli reigned for 23 years, and these must fall within the 5th year of Ramses II's reign. dab(ᛏ) 16:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it the short chronology is cross referenced to various Mesopotamian correspondence as for example above with the Kassites. As to there being no doubt or agreement, whatever consensus there is appears to be more or less within factions, with each faction that agrees internally having problems with other factions that agree internally. Of the sources I have that reference this the preponderence of current opinion is Ramesess I c 1307-1306 ( a century ago this was a century earlier based on Mantheo, Joesephus and the Sothic cycles) and c 1285 for the battle.
In addition to those cited above McNeil and Sedlar gives 1286 (probably from Breasted).I guess the right thing to do is correct the misinformation at Egyptian chronology with some proper cites from both Egyptian and Mesopotamian correspondences. Rktect 17:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
the numbers themselves are fine. My point is rather that, because we cannot enforce one particular faction's view over all of Wikipedia, it is crucial that with every 2nd millennium date you give, if at all possible, you state where it comes from, and which convention you are using. Otherwise, we end in chaos, since people naively copy dates from all over the place, leading to contradictions between articles. For Mesopotamia, we have the brief and unambiguous short/middle/long terminology. I am asking for a corresponding terminology for the Egyptologist "factions". dab(ᛏ) 17:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
The Egyptian chronology article is miserable. At any rate, I'm not sure where Rktect is coming up with the preponderance of current opinion on Ramesses I being 1307-1306. It seems to me that this was probably true about twenty years ago, but that 1292-1290, or thereabouts, is the date which most of the most recent sources use. My understanding is that the 1279 BC date for Ramesses II is based on synchronisms with Babylonian chronology, and specifically with a synchronism regarding the accession of Kadashman-Enlil II, which is apparently now believed to have taken place in 1260 BC, and was in the 19th year of Ramesses II. I'm not sure if the latter (the synchronism with Ramesses II) is accepted by those who dislike the 1279 date, but the 1260 date for Kadashman-Enlil seems to be mostly accepted. See this learned discussion, for instance. Unfortunately, wikipedia gives 1279 as the first year for Kadashman-Enlil...sigh. Is there any book that really makes a comprehensive effort to synchronize chronologies for the entire Near East in the second millennium BC? johnk 18:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I went to the article and looked at the page. Baines and Ma'lek is used for Dynasties 1-10. Ken Kitchen appears to be the source of most of the rest. Although he is one of my favorite authors and I have checked out his chronology, its real basis is that presented in his BAR articles where he allows a range of about a century plus or minus for his dating. While that is better than David Rohl who is also listed, the net result is not exactly soundly founded.
As to the synchronisms between various other historical civilizations, some of the best are those included in the correspondence between other rulers and Egypt asking for exchanges of gifts. Kadashman Enlil I belonged to the 2nd Babylonian dynasty, the Kassites, and ruled until about 1375 BCE. He wrote to Amenhotep III whom Baines and Malek list as ruling 1391-1353) Burnaburiash sent a similar letter asking for gold to Amenhotep's successor, Akhenaten. Most sources give Kadashman-Enlil II, reigns 1279 - 1265 he comes to rule about a century after Burnaburiash.
The argument in ANE goes like this. This is the claim of those who believe 1279 was the accession date of Ramesses. It is based on an interpretation of Hattusili's KBo 1.14 letter to Kadashman-Enlil. The chronological idea is (in years of Ramesses)
c. year 15. Hattusili succeeded to throne of Hatti (c 1275)
c. year 17. Hattusili/Kadashman-Turgu anti-Egyptian alliance (c 1273)
c. year 19. Kadashman-Turgu died Kadashman-Enlil succeeded Karduniash-Enlil adopted anti-Hatti policy (c 1271)
c. year 21. Ramesses/Hattusili alliance (c 1269
Err...no. Those who believe that 1279 was the accession date of Ramesses would have Hattusili succeeding c. 1264, Hattusili/Kadashman-Turgu c.1262, Kadashman-Enlil coming to the throne c. 1260, and the Ramesses/Hattusili alliance c.1258. You are using 1290 start dates as the basis for a calculation based on Ramesses starting in 1279. This suggests that both sides (in this particular argument, at least) agree on c.1260 as the date for Kadashman-Enlil's accession. Year 19 if your start date is 1279, years 31 if your start date is 1290. johnk 00:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The counter argument has Kadashman-Enlil becoming king around year 31/2 (c 1258 1/2) of Ramesses 2 and Ramesses 2 becoming king in 1290. (This puts the battle of Kadesh c 1285 in the fifth year.) The early letters involved in the negotiations for the marriage between Ramesses and the daughter of Hattusili and Puduheps (eventually in year 34 of Ramesses c 1256 BC)support this idea. Particularly their reference to the bad feeling between Egypt and Babylon in part caused by Ramesses attempt to prevent envoys seeing the daughter of the king of Babylon. (You have to ask Who was her father? And note that her father was still king of Babylon when these letters were written).
There is also this version. "The accession of Hattusilis III about 1266 BC inaugurated a period of relative peace and prosperity. Relations steadily improved between the Hittites and Egypt, perhaps as a result of their mutual interest in protecting themselves against Assyria. In 1259 Hattusilis negotiated a famous treaty with Ramses II, assuring the peace and security of the Levant state. Thirteen years later, a further bond was created by the marriage of his daughter to the pharaoh. This girl's mother was Puduhepa (Pudu-Kheba), the daughter of a Kizzuwadnian priest, whom Hattusilis had married. Puduhepa was evidently a woman of strong character who governed alongside her husband; together they reoccupied and rebuilt the old capital city at Hattusas, ordered the recopying of the national archives, and instituted constitutional reforms. Among the many surviving texts from this reign, one appears to be the king's personal apologia justifying his seizure of the throne and his displacement of Urhi-Teshub, the legitimate heir. Urhi-Teshub during this period appears to have been plotting with Kadashman-Enlil II, Kassite king of Babylonia (c. 1264-55 BC), and this was probably responsible for deteriorating relations between the two kings."
That version suggests a 1279 BC start date for Ramesses II. At any rate, it shouldn't be our purpose to argue about which is a more likely date for Ramesses II's accession. It is quite clear that there are still several possible dates which have scholarly supporters. The question is which is the most prevalent. I think if you look at the books published most recently, the 1279 date is generally accepted. As such, we should use this as a starting point. I wouldn't object to also giving the 1290 date, and mentioning how the dates would change connected to it, but I'd prefer to do this in a single article. Basically, my feeling is that we should try to synchronize all these dates as best we can based on the most commonly used dating system at present. We should then have a page that explains the various different chronologies that scholars give, and that then explains that in other articles we will use one particular one. Alternatively, we could give all dates in this article in terms of regnal years of Ramesses II (i.e. Year 5 for the Battle, year 21 for the treaty with Hattusili), and then in parentheses give what that works out to in various absolute dating schemes. But if our article on Ramesses II gives 1279, we simply can't give 1285 as the date for the battle. johnk 00:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I would appreciate the solution "give all dates in this article in terms of regnal years of Ramesses II (i.e. Year 5 for the Battle, year 21 for the treaty with Hattusili), and then in parentheses..." - I happen to believe that there is much credibility in David Rohl's criticism against the conventional chronology. Babylonian chronology (as opposite to Assyrian chronology) in those centuries is entirely dependent on correctness of the Egyptian chronology, as several kings of Assyrian chronology had identical names and Babylonians may have used them without saying which precise king of that name was in question. Shilkanni 07:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
No, there is no credibility in Rohl's criticism against the conventional chronology. Assyrian and Babylonian chronology are much more closely synchronized than you assert, and it is my understanding that it is very easy for those familiar with the materials to distinguish between Assyrian kings of the same name. johnk 07:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
John Kenny makes a convincing argument that Assyrian chronology is well synchronized and that I will have to give up on 1285 as the year of the battle. Focusing on regenal year 5 is good because that is a date certain, not because it might give David Rohl credibility in arguing against traditional chronology. Traditional chronology has enough problems without that. Rktect 00:08, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hey Rktect, sounds good. I'll just add that 1285 isn't necessarily wrong. But 1279 is the most common date given in recent accounts for the start of the reign of Ramesses II, and it doesn't make sense to use 1279 for Ramesses and 1285 for Kadesh. For all I know, Ramesses did accede in 1290, and the battle did take place in 1285. But it is most certainly not the case that he acceded in 1279 and the battle was fought in 1285, which is what wikipedia was saying before. johnk 00:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
guys, I really don't care so much about which is the "correct" date than to get a clean overview of the options under discussion; I'm quite lost here, I don't have the literature myself, and, as you say john, Egyptian chronology is rather bad. I tried to get some sort of system into Chronology of the Ancient Near East some time ago, but I got tired of it, and I still don't have a clear picture of how it ties in with Egyptian chronology; a clear exposition of the topic and the major differences of opinion would be much appreciated. We should then review all pharaoh dates, and note with which scheme they are consistent, so that looking at any pharaoh's article, I'll be able to tell which chronology is being used. Rktect is perfectly right that we should ignore Rohl until we get the problems of conventional chronology sorted out properly. dab(ᛏ) 06:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
--Major quibble--
As I recall, there were TWO battles of Kadesh, the first fought by Pepi I, and the second by his son, Rameses II, with the latter being the more important, if only because of all of the publicity R. gave himself. This article seems to conflate the two battles into one. While Rameses might have been at the first battle, he would have been a child, while with the second R. was there as commander in chief, as Pharoah.
And the article might mention that the Trojan War, if real, would have taken place about this time. --FourthAve 04:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I agree – why mention the Trojan War, what has it to do with this battle. I also don't see the conflation of the 2 battles. Markh 15:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Pepi I was a pharaoh of the 6th dynasty, who lived more than 1000 years before Ramesses II. Perhaps you are thinking of Seti I. At any rate, could you provide substantiation for common discussion of a "First Battle of Kadesh" under Seti. I'm also unclear as to how the article conflates the two battles. The article is a description of what you call the second battle, fought in the fifth year of Ramesses II. john k 06:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The first Trojan war involved Hercules and Hesione, the face that launched six ships.
I dont understand your point. What have these 2 events got to do with each other ? Markh 10:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2nd Kadesh (real), The Trojan War (either or both) (if real), the Exodus (if real) and the most certainly real Rameses II were concurrent.--FourthAve 10:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I still dont see the need to mention these 2 events together in this article ? What has the Trojan War got to do with the Battle of Kadesh ? Markh 10:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
--
There are two Battles of Kadesh. The article is errant.
--Indeed. The artcle is errant. R2 was P1's son.
What is the first Battle of Kadesh? I've never heard of this. At any rate, the traditional date for the Trojan War is around 1185 BC, which is 100 years after the middle chronology date for the Battle of Kadesh (and 90 years after the low chronology date). john k 06:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Gawd, I gotta dig up a reference, if I can. But so far as my memory goes I am absolutely certain there were two battles of Kadesh. The first was rather minor. Most certainly, Pepi was RII's father. As for dates, these are almost fungible. Rameses is usually regarded as the Pharoah of the Exodus, if the Exodus actually took place in even the remotest way the Bible describes it. There were a number of Trojan Wars, the most famous being TWII, the war of Helen (TWI was the war of Hesione, the face that launched six ships), but Homer's war is mostly myth with some jumbled bits of real history. But the period involves the Hittite Empire, and the Trojans probably spoke an Anatolian language. There is the lesser-known myth of Egpytian Helen, where Helen was magically transported to Egypt, while a phantom accompanied Paris to Troy and sent Aggamemnon and Menelaus after the phantom. There is a whole series of novels based on all of this (not very good, nor particularly accurate, but they do have a following; they include Moses too).--FourthAve 08:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I find it confusing that the entry says the Hitites won the tactical victory... The episode of 'Line of Fire' dealing with this episode (Line of Fire is a series of one hour documentaries on important battles--I believe it is British in origin but it is shown regularly on Australian TV on The History Channel) indicated--and by this I mean all the experts who were interviewed and who were asked the question all responded--that if anything the Egyptians were the tactical victors and that the Hitites were the strategic victors.
Has anyone else seen this episode? What sources cite a Hitite tactical victory? They still controled the city of Qadesh but by all accounts they were mauled badly by the Egyptians (who also suffered severe casualties--hence the stragegic loss).
If you look at all the Egyptian kings who fought Kadesh in the 18th and 19th Dynasties they start out fighting on the Orontes against Kadesh in the mountains somewhere north east of the Amurru c 1550 BC and end up fighting against the sea people allies invading from Libya.Rktect 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little skeptical of the recent changes to the description of the battle, there are no links, no references and it seems to be rather "hysterical" in its tone, to quote another editor "While some of the extensive additions are worthwhile, overall it is far to biased, too speculatively dramatic, and ignores important resources outside the Egyptian accounts." Also who is "Ramses' poet-historian Penator"? Markh 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want links here it is *Battle of Kadesh. Penator is a poet who made a poem about the battle of Kadesh, which it is the main register of the battle. He is also called Pentaur. The Poem of Pentaur. User: Super Knuckles 18:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced much of your addition as it wasn't properly linked into other articles and had no references. Large sections of it also appear to have been copied out the article you mentioned. See below and [1] Don not copy in copyrighted material from other sites.
"As the Egyptian Division of Re marched on Kadesh, there was no sense of urgency -- the king's orders had not reached it yet, and would not arrive until it was too late. The Egyptian officers were behind the troops, still in the Forest of Robaui, as the division slowly crawled across the plain, the infantrymen trudging along with their heavy shields slung across their backs. "
Please check what I have written and add to it, including references. The naming of the Poem of Pentaur has not been used for a long time, as "the attribution to Pentaur was dropped when it was recognised that he was merely the scribe responsible for a particular copy preserved in a papyrus" (Sir Alan Gardiner).
Thanks. I really appreciate the help you are giving me improving this article. User: Super Knuckles 22:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That OK, we both want a good article, so its not a problem. Keep up the good work Markh 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? Because off the top of my head, I seem to remember the root for "build" perhaps being qdm, but that word you've spelled there seems to read kDAm. I'd transliterate it Kedjam myself. We'd need to have a souce to add any of this to the article. Thanatosimii 16:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I was using Gardiner who doesn't really distinguish between Q and K. The alphabet p 27 lists N27 and says like our Q in queen but N27 itself says phon. k33.
In practice Q and K interchange often as in Kadesh, Qadesh.
N 27 has the meaning sand hill. Most of the N 27 words p 597 begin k3; for qdm
"mity n wD iny n bAk im Hr int.f r kmt Hr anx mswt nbty anx mswt nswt-bity xpr-kA-ra sA ra imn-m-HAt anx Dt r nHH wD nswt n Smsw sA-nhAt mk in.tw n.k wD pn n nswt r rdit rx.k ntt pXr.n.k xAswt prt m qdm rtnw dd tw xAst n xAst Xr sH n ib.k n.k ptr irt.n.k ir.tw r.k n waA.k xsf.tw mdw.k n mdw.k m sH n srw itn.tw Tsw.k sxr pn in.n.f ib.k nn rf m ib.i r.k pt.k tn ntt m aH mn.s rwd.s m-min dp.tw.s tp.s m nsyt nt tA msw.s m aXnwty"
Jenny uses
"Copy of the decree brought to this servant concerning bringing him to Egypt The Horus living of births, he of the Two Ladies living of births, The dual king Kheperkara son of Ra of Amenemhat living forever eternally Decree of the king to the follower Sanehat See this decree of the king is brought to you To inform you that you have travelled the hill-lands Going from Qedem of SyriaHill-land gave you to hill-land following the counsel of your heart to yourself What was it you had done, or had been done to you? You did not say wrong that your words be punished You did not speak in the council of officials that your statements be bound This matter, it carried off your heart - there was nothing in my heart against you This your heaven who is in the palace, she is well and strong today Her head is adorned with the kingship of the land Her children are in the inner palace"
There are four Egyptians divisions on the campaign, but only the bodyguard is present and fights. The Divisions of Re and Amon get ambushed and routed and then the gap between the bodyguard and the Division of Ptah is spread out over at least 1 itrw or 11.1 KM; 7 miles.
If the Egyptians are set up like the Hittites then thats 21,000 royal cubits. 2500 chariots ea in each division so 2500 in the battle, likewise 5000 men is each division so 5000 in the battle. 2500 chariots 2 abreast cover 3.5 miles, the remaining 3.5 miles has 5000 troops Rktect 23:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"None of you was there...None rose to lend me his hand in my fight...None of you came later to tell the story of his heroic deeds in Egypt...The foreigners who saw me, praise my name to the end of all lands where I was not known...Since ancient times a man was honored for his fighting abilities, but I will not reward any of you, as you have abandoned me when I was alone fighting my enemies."
You keep saying that 1 division participated in the battle while 3 divisions participated in the battle Re, Amon, Ptah and a special division from Amurru. Even your info saying about this is wrong, because you say Amon and Re were routed and that only Ramses’ bodyguards fights, this is incorrect first because bodyguards are NOT a division but PART of Amon, and Re was routed so it participated in the battle, Ptah arrived when the fighting was almost over and Amurru was the division who turn the tide of the battle against the Hitties. Besides 2500 chariots as bodyguards? I even have several sites that support “my” view of the battle. *The actual Battle of Kadesh
I wasn't there so I don't know for sure, but Rameses says he was all alone. I interpret this to mean he was all alone with his bodyguard. The bodyguard is at best a company, probably with a platoon of picked men from each division. If we allow that its a couple of hundred men, lets say all chariots, I'd rate it as a high moral, hand picked, experienced, skilled, highly mobile force overwhelmed by numbers fighting their asses off in a rear guard action.
The divisions are spaced out about 1 itrw or 7 miles and not in battle formation when they get ambushed. The word rout is used. Reading between the lines with Re getting hit first, overrun and routed and then as they clear Re continuing on so Amon gets hit from the rear and routed, Rameses bodyguard must have given their all to get their king clear of the ambush.
Rameses would have had to cover about 21 miles at a gallop back through the few remnants of his army that managed to hold their ground to escape. I don't count the routed divisions as fighting because all they can accomplish once routed is try to get out alive.
For the Amurru from Hazor to get involved the fighting has to be in the forrested mountains which makes it hard for either chariots or bowmen to be effective. I'm not sure they would have had the strength of an Egyptian division because after all they are a city state as opposed to an empire. Ptah was too far away to have done much more than observe the rout, and Set would have only heard about it all later. Rktect 02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You are forgetting something very important; first, the Amon division was in a fortified camp at the time the hitties attacked. And Ramesses saying that he defeated the hitties alone was an act of propaganda, saying that he and not his army defeated the enemies of Egypt.
User:Super Knuckles 9:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
My understanding was that camp had been broken By Ramesses personal bodyguard in the morning and by Amun in the afternoon of the ninth day. The division of Amun were on the march, not in battle array and attacked from behind while traveling on a narrow mountain path by a force that had just anihlated the division of Re traveling about 7 miles behind them. Rameses is thought to have been part of a small force scouting ahead while his three sons followed him leading the other armies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rktect (talk • contribs) 15:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
But that it’s incorrect, in every source it’s said that the Amon was attacked in the encampment,
because Ramesses already knew the Hitties could attack at any second. Besides if the Egyptians were scouting as you say, they would have known that the Hitties were behind Kadesh before the discovering the two Hitties scouts who told them the truth. Besides you are forgetting something VERY important: what gave time for the Egyptians to rally and to counter-attack was the fact that the Hitties stop the attack to loot the Egyptian camp because Muwatallish was not paying them. I have these references from some sites : “…the Division of Amon was still south of Kadesh, struggling to catch up. Once that division arrived, the Egyptians erected a fortified camp, its perimeter marked by a palisade formed with the shields of the infantry.”; “As the refugees from the Division of Re poured into Ramses' camp, their panic spread among the Division of Amon.”; “…neglected to mention that the Hittites, who understandably believed their enemies to be totally routed, had stopped to loot the Egyptian camp.”; *[2]
“The Egyptian's no doubt set up camp with the expectations of an extended stay, for at the center of the camp they erected a shrine to the god Amun, together with the great tent of the pharaoh where Ramesses II "took his seat on a throne of gold".; “…as the remnants of the Army of Re approached the camp of Amun, followed in hot pursuit by the Hittite chariotry…”; “By this time, the Hittite chariotry forces were concentrated within the camp and perhaps at a point where they had become somewhat disorganized.”
“While the Amen division was setting up camp, 2500 Hittite chariots attacked the marching Re division in two waves.”; “The Hittites dispersed the Amen division and began pillaging the Egyptian camp.”
Ramesses II and the Army of Amun began to strike camp on the ninth day in order to cross the Orontes probably by the ford at Shabtuna (or nearby). It must have taken some considerable period of time for this to have been effected.
Five thousand men, perhaps along with additional (and probably, considering the retinue that followed the King, substantial) support personnel, their equipment, including chariots, had to move down the ridge through the Labwi (Robawi) forest and ponderously cross the Orontes. This all probably took a great deal of time and even if the Army of Amun broke camp (a major undertaking in itself) early on the ninth day, they probably did not complete the crossing until at least mid-afternoon.
I take that to mean that the king with his much lighter force began hitting the road in the morning but the Division of Amun didn't move out until afternoon so that Ramesses mau have been half a days march or 3 1/2 miles ahead. Re got hit first and then Amun so its likely they were all spread out and disorganized when the Hittites began their attack with a flurry of arrows that coming from behind were not shielded against.Rktect16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I really don't know what actually happened, there's what the inscriptions claimed, the way scholars treat the variances between the Egyptian and Hittite accounts and our take on it.
As to how many Divisions were engaged, The first question is were the divisions fighting on a plain where rapid manuever was possible, or still going through the mountains spread out single file over long distances and susceptible to ambush. The description Rameses gives says he was separated from Amon.
while his majesty was alone by himself (17) with his retinue.
The division of Amon was on the march behind him;
He also claims to be even further separated from the Division of Re, about 1 itrw or 7 miles.
the division of Re was crossing the ford in a district south of the town of Shabtuna,
at the dis-stance of one iter from the place where his majesty was ;
Shabtuna and Arnaim are east of Byblos. If you look at a map the headwaters of the Orontes are sldo east of Byblos. The Litani goes as far north as Baelbek. The Litani and Orontes spring from almost the same source one headed North and the other South. Thats the border between Egypt and the djadi, Syria, Lebanon and Aram and quite a bit south of where Rameses is told the king of Kadesh is located. Maybe the information is just old, it may be Mutawalis moved south fast or concievably they had just been battling it out so long they knew where they usually met up to fight.
I don't know exactly where the border is for the land of the Amurru, but their capital is Hazor and their territory is southwest of Aram which is southwest of Damascus.Rktect05:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have a question for you: You say that Ramesses took 10,000 chariots, making 2,500 chariots per division, and that Amon and Re, were routed an Ptah and Set didn’t participated so where do you get those 2,500 chariots belonging to the bodyguards? And also: where did you get that info saying that there were 10,000 chariots? Because everywhere I find that Ramesses took 20,000 infantry and approximately 2000 chariots to the battle.
User:Super Knuckles19:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
The army organization
Ancient armies were generally small compared to modern mass armies [5]. The Egyptian army of the New Kingdom was composed of three divisions under Seti I on his Canaan campaign, named Suteh (Set) - "the heroic archers", Amen - "the mighty archers" and Re - "the many-armed", [4] and of four under Ramses II on his Kadesh campaign, the forth being named Ptah.
A division numbered several thousand men, typically 4000 infantry and 1000 chariotry, organized into ten battalions of about 500 soldiers, which were subdivided into companies 250 strong, platoons of fifty men and ten men squads. The overall command lay in the hands of the pharaoh himself or one of his close relatives, generally a son. Similar to the administration of the whole kingdom, the army was divided into a northern and a southern corps overseen by Chief Deputies. The line of command included ranks corresponding to the modern generals, battalion commanders, standard bearers and adjutants at the company level, lieutenants leading the platoons, and non-commissioned officers in charge of squads. [1]
Come, [let me tell] you the woes of the soldier, and how many are his superiors: the general, the troop-commander, the officer who leads, the standard-bearer, the lieutenant, the scribe, the commander of fifty, and the garrison-captain. Instructions in letter writing by Nebmare-nakht
M.Lichtheim , Ancient Egyptian Literature (University of California Press, 1976), I, pp. 168-173.
The chariotry was led by marshals (jmj-rA ssmwt - Ami-Re-sesemut). It was divided into brigades, each of which was comprised of two or more squadrons. Five companies of ten chariots each made up a squadron. Egyptian chariots were manned by two soldiers, a driver and an archer. Parallel to the combat line of command there was a scribal administration organized on hierarchical lines and distinct from the combat officers. .
Rameses II introduced the oxcart for carrying arrows for archers. When we speak of the Army what often gets counted is just the fighting men but in the inscriptions of the battle of Kadesh there are portrails of supply trains following the army. Since the oxcart moved at a pace of about one itrw per day it tended to be necessary to both guard it and travel with it at its pace. If a Division is composed of ten battallions and some are charioteers, some are bowmen, some are infantry, then some are logistical. The logistical portion of a modern army may represent two thirds of the total force. :
Certainly in addition to the arrows they carried themselves, they needed to be able to resupply and to carry food, tents, cook pots, tools, changes of clothing, bedding, spare parts, and in the case of Ramesses a golden throne. There were enough valuables brought with the army in support of its campaign that the Hittites stopped to loot them. The organization of a division into 500 squads would mean 500 sergents to lead the squads. The platoons would get platoon sergents and lieutentants, the squadrons first sergents, supply sergents first lieutentants and captains, brigades would add majors and colonels or marshals. For ten batallions or brigades composed of two companies or squadrons with five companies of ten chariots each and with each Egyptian chariot manned by two soldiers, a driver and an archer, you would have three more soldiers driving the ox carts full of necessary supplies and thus ten chariots would account for 50 men, and thirty carts, donkey's, camels, horses or oxen.
For 1000 chariots you would have 5000 men of whom 1000 would be charioteers, 1000 would be bowmen, 3000 would be logistical support, cooks, baggage handlers, drovers, blacksmiths, supply sergents and payroll clerks or scribes. Adding the infantry, spearmen, light cavalry serving as messengers and skirmishers, and their logistical support the total force would be closer to 10,000 men, half of whom would have primarily logistical duties, some of whom would be camp followers. Rktect13:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
The campaign begins Year 5, the second month of the third season tenth month, on the ninth day
the battle comes a month later. An itrw is given as 1/10th degree and a days march by Herodotus. Rameses starts at the Fortress of Tharu (31.25 N-33.25 E) and travels about 3 degrees or 210 miles northeast to Kadesh in the mountains near Dan, east of Tyre, north of lake Chinnereth(33.25N-35.5E)
Year 5, third month of the third season, day 9; To go an additional seventy miles north to the headwaters of the Orantes east of Byblos would have been difficult going single file on the narrow paths through the mountains.
To touch on the Orontes it has to be as far north as Byblos but its also considerably south of where most of the allies mentioned would be located.
When Ramesses alone with his personal bodyguard is ambushed at Kadesh the Division of Amun is about an Itrw, 7 miles or a days march single file along the narrow mountain paths behind.
The Division of RE is still crossing the ford of the Orontes at Shabtuna (Hashabtu south of Byblos)
The Division of Ptah is another days march behind them, east of Beiruit
The Division of Set is still on the shore but that could be anything from the shore of Mediterranian Sea at Beirut to any of the lakes of Aram.
Rameses bodyguard sends word to the division of Re to close up the gap but they are ambushed en route so fail to join the battle at Kadesh. Ptah and Set are too far away to get into the action. With Re destroyed Ramesses and his body guard are cut off and as the bodyguard engage the Hittites as a rear guard to allow Ramesses to retreat toward Amun the Hittites fall upon them when they are still south of Kadesh.
The battle takes place in the land of Kheta and Naharin, in the land of Arvad, in Pedes, in the Derden, in the land of Mesa, in the land of Kelekesh, Carchemish, Kode, the land of Kadesh, in the land of Ekereth, and Mesheneth.
In the Bible Aram is a region southwest of Damascus.
Aram-Damascus may be a better term because most of the cities mentioned in association are on the border between Egypt-Israel and the Hittites/Mitanni with Lebanon on one side and Syria on the other;
Aram southwest of Damascus is the territory of Asher, Dan, Nephtali and Zebul on the headwaters of the Jordan
Hazor, in the lands of Amurru
Kadesh, in the lands of Kode, in the mountains east of Byblos on the headwaters of the Orontes
Dan, in the lands of Dan, Derden
Argob, in the lands of Asher, Arvad on the coast of Asher
Bashan, in the lands of Benjamin
Maccah, in the lands of Manasses, Mese, Mesheneth, Meryannu, Mitanni
Zeobah, in the lands of Zebulon
Kenneth
Naphtali, in the lands of Nahraim, the land of the rivers and the Mittani.
Kelekesh, in the lands of Lebanon
How to Make the Ketoreth (incense)? 30:34 Take unto thee sweet spices, nataf (נטף stacte), and Shekleth (שׁחלת , onycha), and Chelvenah (חלבּנה galbanum); [these] sweet spices with pure lebonah (לבנה frankincense): of each shall there be a like [weight]:
Charchemish bordering the lands of Ekereth (Ugarit)
is much farther north than the rest of the Hittites allies; Kheta, which came entire, the Naharin likewise, and Arvad, Mesa, Keshkesh, Kelekesh, Luka, Kezweden, Carchemish, Ekereth, Kode, the entire land of Nuges, Mesheneth, and Kadesh, all abutting the Orontes in Syria and Anatolia.
Ramesses has with him the Sherden of the captivity
The campaign begins Year 5, the second month of the third season tenth month, on the ninth day,
his army came upon the narrow road,
Rameses was proceeding north from Usermare- Meriamon, the city of cedar into the highland of Kadesh to cross over the channel of the Orontes, there being with him the first division of Amon
Rameses reached the city, and encountered the chief of Kheta there
gathered together were all countries from the ends of the sea to the land of Kheta, which came entire: the Naharin likewise, and Arvad, Mesa, Keshkesh, Kelekesh, Luka, Kezweden, Carchemish, Ekereth, Kode, the entire land of Nuges, Mesheneth, and Kadesh.
The chief of Kheta, together with numerous allied countries, were stationed in battle array concealed on the northwest of the city of Kadesh, while his majesty was alone by himself, with his bodyguard,
the division of Amon was marching behind him.
The division of Re crossed over the river-bed on the south side of the town of Shabtuna, at the distance of an iter from the division of Amon;
the division of Ptah was on the south of the city of Aranami;
the division of Sutekh was marching upon the road.
His majesty had formed the first rank of all the leaders of his army, while they were on the shore in the land of the Amor.
The chief of Kheta was concealed northwest of the city of Kadesh.
They came forth from the southern side of Kadesh, and they cut through the division of Re in its middle, while they were marching without knowing and without being drawn up for battle. The infantry and chariotry of his majesty retreated before them. Now, his majesty had halted on the north of the city of Kadesh, on the western side of the Orontes. Then came one to tell it to his majesty
His majesty halted in the rout; then he charged into the foe,
When his majesty went to look behind him, he found 2,500 chariotry surrounding him, in his way out, being all the youth of the wretched Kheta, together with its numerous allied countries: from Arvad, from Mesa, from Pedes, from Keshkesh, from Erwenet, from Kezweden, from Aleppo, Eketeri, Kadesh, and Luka, being three men to a span, acting in unison.
(833 chariots and 2500 charioteers or 2500 chariots and 7500 charioteers?)
Year 5, third month of the third season, day 9;
Lo, his majesty was in Zahi (Zohar ?) on the highland south of Kadesh. (Golan Heights)
south of the town of Shabtuna, there came two Shasu, to speak to his majesty
The chief of Kheta sits in the land of Aleppo, on the north of Tunip.
Lo, the vanquished chief of Kheta ... drawn up in line of battle behind Kadesh ... his majesty proceeded northward and arrived on the northwest of Kadesh; and the army of his majesty made camp there.
Where is he, the vanquished chief of Kheta? Behold, I have heard, saying: 'He is in the land of Aleppo,'"
every country which is in the districts of the land of Kheta, the land of Naharin, and all Kode. They are equipped with infantry and chariotry, bearing their weapons; more numerous are they than the sand of the shore. See, they are standing, drawn up for battle, behind Kadesh the Deceitful."
Then the vizier was ordered to hasten the army of his majesty, while they were marching on the south of Shabtuna, in order to bring them to the place where his majesty was.
The chief of Kheta came, and the numerous countries, which were with him. They crossed over the channel on the south of Kadesh, and charged into the army of his majesty while they were marching, and not expecting it. Then the infantry and chariotry of his majesty retreated before them, northward to the place where his majesty was. Lo, the foes of the vanquished chief of Kheta surrounded the bodyguard of his majesty, who were by his side.
The footnotes you removed are the cites to Book and page of ANET included in the references to Pritchard "The Ancient Near East" Even Wikipedia allows properly cited quotes therefore I restored your removals Rktect20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Citations and quotes not directly related to the battle of Kadesh do not belong in this article. If necessary, submit a Request for Comments before adding back the extensive alterations you made to this article. Extensive personal arguments in this discussion section are also out of place, due to the restriction on orginal research. Only cite scholarly references specifically mentioning the Battle of Kadesh. 69.109.120.12904:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Before dispute resolution there usually needs to be a dispute. Discussion here needs to fail before there is a dispute. I edited the references to give you the reasons they relate to the battle of Kadesh and removed those which are just background info. The following items are unquestionably relevant.
1.) The Egyptian inscriptions whose text tells the story of the battle
2.) Photographs and illustrations of them which provide more detail.
3.) Their various translations, transliterations, etc;
4.) The Egyptian campaign records of all the preceeding battles against Kadesh
5.) Their various translations as referenced in ANET
6.) Background references from Joshua and Judges which provide more geo-political context.
7.) The Treaty as recorded in both Egyptian and Hittite sources
8.) Linguistic references that help with reading the original text
9.) Information on the participants
10) Maps of the territory of the Hittites and the Hittite and Egyptian vassals involved
11) Information about the size of the forces contributed by Aleppo, Khatti, Naharin, Arzawa, Dardany, Keshkesh, Mesha, Pidassa, Arwen, Karkisha, Luka, Carchemish, Ugarit, Dedy, Nuhashshe, Mushanet, Kadesh (see CAM for maps of their territory)
12) Kizwadna (Kizzuwadna), was commissioned to:
"...send one hundred horses equipped (with chariots) and a thousand foot soldiers to the army of the Sun, who will provide for them."
13) The obvious questions and the references that provide the answers should be included ie;
Given the size of the force from Kizwadna, was that ratio of chariots to infantry and callup typical, and if so then there were 1200 chariots and 12,000 infantry drawn from the 12 landfolk vassals with the Hittites responsible for substantially supplimenting those forces with draws from the five sea peoples mentioned? You need to look at reports of other battles to answer that
A Who were the Egypian allies besides the Sherden, Peleset, Tjecker and Amurru?
B What was their relation to their neighbor Kedesh?
C Why was their city of Hazor burned?
D When did that happen?
E What part did the city states of Syria, Lebanon, Canaan and Aram play?
F Whose side were they on?
G Were the shashu shown being beaten actually Im?
H Where were they from (Lebanon, Syria, Canaan, or Aram)?
I What part did they play in the battle?
J Who were the Nahrin ?
K Were they mercenaries?
K Which of the participants such as the Shashu nomads without any lands,
L What forces did the sea peoples contribute and were they vassals or mercenaries?
Many or most of those questions require looking at background information coming from other campaigns, the Amarna letters, Hittite texts, other ANE texts, oher Egyptian texts.
Rktect15:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I will not debate this or continue an edit war with the lunatic fringe. I hand this over to the Wikipedia community to deal with as they see fit. I invite anyone to go to the ancient history section in their nearest library or bookstore, open up any book they find on the Battle of Kadesh (Any ancient Egyptian history book will do), and compare the account with Rktect's edits, which were previously dealt with as long ago as 2005. I have submitted a request for comment. If you wish to take seriously edits with lines like, "while the local giants are being interogated", and with "relevant" references such as, "Marine Archaeology References" because they mention the Sea Peoples, "Mathematics in the time of the Pharoahs", "Classical References" for an ancient battle, etc., etc., then have at it. I recommend undoing every change since Rktect's edits, and then locking the article, but will not pursue this any further. 69.109.120.12901:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Those familiar with the mentions of the Zamuzumim, Rephim, Emim etc: located in the area of the battle of Kadesh will appreciate the illustration. Those who care about scholarly references which define the terms of an article such as itrw the distance by which the armies are separated may find a referance useful as is the case with toponyms. Those who are interested in identifying the allies of the Hittites may find references to them useful onomastica. Herodotus discussion of the Pelasgians and other sea peoples beter known from the inscriptions of Rameses III at Medinet Habu have already been named as participants at the Battle of Kadesh. Rktect15:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
The current version has very few inline citations, making it difficult to see which sources are claimed as the source of information about the various paragraphs of the article. In addition, the reference list does not follow Wikipedia style. Please refer to the article about the Battle of Gettysburg for an example of how to properly include citations in the body text of an article about a battle, and how to properly list citations in the footnotes section. VisitorTalk00:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
There are presently thirty eight body text citations in the footnotes section placed using the Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
template. Do you prefer a different one specifically designed for battles? Is there an organizational sequence, such as the one for Roman battles, showing the timeline and rate of march for each element that you would like to include? Rktect14:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
The entire paragraph "For most of the Hyksos period..." has no inline citations. Which authoritative source provided the information about most of this period? "At the start of this period ... the Hittites were..." Who says that this is what the Hittites were at that time? "Many of the Egyptian campaign accounts... " Which accounts would these be?
I added a reference to Baines and Ma'lek regarding the Hyksos, for the Hittites I went to CAM pp 132-146, and the campaign accounts were already cited farther down the page. Rktect12:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Again, look at the corresponding background section of the Gettysburg article. "Lee's 72,000 man army (Busey and Martin)"... The Cavalry Corps was commanded {Eicher, p. 491)"... "equal to his southern counterpart (Symonds, p. 36)"... see how it works? You make a statement, then, as close to the statement as convenient, indicate where you got that information. VisitorTalk06:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think it would be interesting to know to what part of the article the following reference actually referred to ....
==== THOTHMOSIS IV (Late Bronze Age, 14th c. B.C.E.) ====
<blockquote> "A Syrian Captive Colony" ANET., pp. 248. <ref> The settlement of the fortification of Men-khepru-Re (Thothmosis IV) with the Syrians (Kharu)[of] his majesty's capturing in the town of Gez[er]. </ref> </blockquote>
... as references with out context are basically meaningless. 86.147.76.19522:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
The references to the battles of the kings of the 18th and 19th dynasties with Kadesh are there to provide the geo-political context of Rameses II battle with Kadesh, its a continuation of centuries of conflict between the two adversaries.
Thutmosis IV is mentioned as one of the Pharoahs of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt who did battle with the Syrians and the king of Kadesh. The earliest reference to Egypt fighting kadesh begins with Sinhue doing single combat with the Qdem (see above) toward the end of the Twelfth dynasty of Egypt.
The [[Thirteenth dynasty of Egypt through the [[Fourteenth dynasty of Egypt have many kings ruling various different parts of Egypt at the same time. The [[Fifteenth dynasty of Egyypt is Hyksos and things with Kadesh are relatively quiet.
In the Seventeenth dynasty of Egypt Khames defeats the Hyksos and as Ahmes founds the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt. After that Thutmosis I,II,III Amenophis II, Thutmosis IV, plus Seti I and Ramessess II of the Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt do battle with Kadesh and other Hittite allies including the sea peoples in the mountains along the border of Lebanon and Syria.
The period of the Amarna letters overlaps the long battle with Kadesh and the Exodus. Under Thutmosis II Hatshepset becomes regent for Thutmosis III and Egypts attention turns to the east and south across the Red Sea. When Tutmosis III finally comes of age he campaigns against the King of Kadesh at Megiddo. Amenophis II and his son Thutmosis IV continue the campaign against Kadesh and the Nahrain of Mitanni of Syria as far south as Gezer. After Amenophis III we get Tutankhamen who appears not to campaign in Syria but merely garrisons Canaan. After Ankhenaten Haremhab attempts to regain some of the lost ground and then we come to the Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt with a lot of ground having been lost and Egypts vassals seriously concerned.
In the Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt following Set I's campaign against Kadesh Rameses II reigns a very long time, fights the Syrians constantly, and shortly after the end of his reign Rameses III is fighting the Sea People and Libyans in Egypt. Rktect02:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
What in the ARTICLE body do the references refer to ? They make no sense and don't support anything in the article. They also make the article look awful, please look at the suggested article for examples of how to add references. 22:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markh (talk • contribs)
The article is about the battle of Kadesh. Points of interest include who did what, where, and when. Since Egypt was at war with Kadesh throughout the 18th and 19th dynasties, there is a lot of activity thats worth mentioning. Take the Amurru as one example. They routinely fight on both sides. The references tell you why,... If you have read them you should know, so tell us what you think the reason is. Rktect23:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thutmose IV was never involved in a conflict in Asia or even at Kadesh. He had made peace with the Mitannian kings as Tushratta mentioned in one Amarna letter. Egypt and Mitanni was at peace and there was no revolt or uprising in Asia for Thutmose IV to crush. Perhaps you are referring to Amenhotep II instead? Anyhow, the only documented military conflict in Thutmose IV's reign was a minor Nubian uprising in Year 8 of his reign which is documented by several stelas from Konosso. (see Betsy Bryan's 1991 book, The reign of Thutmose IV, pp.332-336) The uprising was really just a minor skirmish between Thutmose IV and some Kushite rebels--as Bryan notes--since Thutmose IV is reported to have rode into battle himself in his chariot. If it was a major uprising, I think Thutmose IV would have left it to his generals to crush the revolt. Here is an online copy of the Konosso stela: [7]Regards, Leoboudv21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here is how Baines and Malek phrase it. "Both at home and abroad the reigns of Thutmosis IV (1401-1391) and Amenophis III (1391-1393) form a single phase. Egypt lost more ground to Mitanni under Thutmosis IV but the two power made a peace before his death and sealed it with the marriage of a Mitanni princess as a minor wife of Thutmosis IV. Thutmosis IV
As a young prince, Tuthmosis IV served in the northern army corps at Memphis. Tuthmosis IV lead a army unit known as ‘Menkheprure, Destroyer of Syria’, and as pharaoh at this time period holds the position of Commander-in –Chief of the Army. Tuthmosis IV also fought a war in Nubia from which Egypt received a great deal of wealth. He made treaties with neighboring countries such as Babylonia that ushered in an era of peace and political stability lasting through the reign of his son Amenhotep III. Tuthmosis IV is known for being the first king in battle on a chariot against foreign enemies.
Hi there, I'm afraid that Baines/Malek are in error on which Pharaoh first used chariots. Thutmose I is the first Egyptian king who is explicitly depicted riding a chariot--which makes sense since he was a warrior king who fought succesful campaigns in Asia. (there is a seal or drawing showing this if I recall) Thutmose III later used chariots in battle against Mitanni. Thutmose IV's military history is unremarkable. Maybe TIV did serve in the army under his father Amenhotep II--I don't know--but he was no great warrior pharaoh when he became king. In fact, he had other serious problems since he wasn't even supposed to take the throne--his older brother was. (Hawass thinks he murdered his older brother and usurped the throne). I feel TIV was mostly motivateed to consolidate the Egyptian Empire, not really to expand it; to do this, he had to make peace with the Mitannian king. Leoboudv01:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Dear Rktect,
You are correct that Amenhotep II did lose some territory to Mitanni during his reign. It is also true that Thutmose IV does use the epithet 'Destroyer of Syria' but this might just be for propaganda purposes. What is more important is preserved RECORDS from this king's reign! The only conflict we have is the Year 8 skirmish with some minor Nubian rebels. There is no documentary evidence of a conflict between Thutmose IV and Mitanni...only that Thutmose IV succeeded in making peace with the Mitannian king after several attempt. If Thutmose IV was really fighting the Mitannians on the battlefield, no Mitannian king would have accepted his peace entreaties at face value. My personal opinion is TIV made peace with the Mitannians since he was not interested in fighting his father's and grandfather's wars with the Mitannians and wanted to preserve the peace and prosperity of Egypt rather than squandering treasure against the Mitannians. Indeed, Thutmose IV's reign was one of the heights of Egypt's great artistry and monumental building...he definitely was no warrior pharaoh! In this, he was closer to his son, Amenhotep III.
But this is irrelevant to any discussion on the battle of Kadesh which occured more than 125 years after TIV's death anyway. If I could voice an opinion, if you wish to give some extensive quotations on the Battle of Kadesh, just give 1 or 2 parts. The long extensive quotes which you gave are just overwhelming....most people would tune out before reaching the end of the article. This is not a comment on you, this is just a comment on the content, nothing else.
Regards, Leoboudv01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
The relevance is that the Egyptian campaign against Kadesh is ongoing and continuing throughout the 18th and 19th dynasties. Thutmosis IV ruled for over a decade as the commander of the Syrian forces. Its sort of like talking about the Hundred Years War and not recognizing that it involved more than a single battle. Fathers took their sons on their campaigns and then the sons go on to campaign against Kadesh with their sons and this all goes on for centuries.
As to the length, this article is actually fairly short. The footnotes from ANET (not the references) might be stubbed off. Rktect01:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
This is an encyclopedia, not a dissertation. Though we want all articles to be heavily sourced, the citations should not be used in quite the same manner. We don't need argumentative evidence, we don't need quotations, we only need to say what historians believe, not precicely why they believe it, unless there is a debate of some notable interst. Either all this new text should be worked into the body of the article in a more encyclopedic fashion or it should be removed. Thanatosimii16:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
We don't want what historians or anyone else believes, just the facts. Beliefs and opinions, speculations and references to what other professionals believe or believed are all subject to challenge. Under verifiability its Wikipedia policy that any citation that gives a reason for a statement is better than no reason at all. References including pictures of the primary source, including quotations and footnotes help establish the facts. All the evidence is argumentative for a variety of reasons. The exact location, force strength, participants, reason for the campaign and outcome are all considered questionable. We dont know to what degree Rameses scribes spun their record of the results to make their boss a hero. My suggestian would be that people who havent read a reference should read it first, raise their questions, then place on the discussion page their proposed replacement reference which either says something different, or expands upon what has already been said. Rktect23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have deleted them, we should probably try and integrate the sames that make sense (and that haven't been lifted wholesale from the pages they reference) back into the article Markh10:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Blanking references is vandalism. I recognize that you are new and many things dont make sense to you yet, but generally the best approach is to read the references first and then discuss any action on the talk page before damaging the article. Rktect23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi there, your references are (a) copied wholesale from the internet, (b) at best irrelevant, (c) make no sense in the context of the article (d) make the article look awful and (e) badly formatted. I don't understand why you think that what you are doing on this page and the other articles Nine bows and Kadesh is any way constructive. If you want to add references to the article, you have to add information that supports (or doesn't) the content (or add new content). Why not have a look at the Ahmose I article, which has integrated references and actually flows like an article rather than someones lectures notes. I am going to delete the references again (as suggested by at least 2 other editors). Cheers 23:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markh (talk • contribs)
Sorry, my references are all books. Some of the footnotes are from the books, some are from online sources citing their sources. Their relevance is given with them. If you dont think the Nine bows as the enemies of the Egyptuians and the allies of the Hittites are relevant to the article, explain why the Pharoahs fighting Kadesh throughout the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt and the Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt mention them in their inscriptions. If you want to delete references from the article try replacing them with something better first Rktect23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
The comment that discussion of the Hyksos doesnt belong on the page is misinformed. [8] .
Hyksos Leaders Breasted in "A History of the Ancient Egyptians" section 175 argues for the city of Kadesh in Syria as the center of the Hyksos power. George A. Barton, PH D. in Archeology and the Bible, Published by ASSU, Philadelphia PA, USA, IVth Edition, 1952, pp 28-29 notes the drift of opinion toward the Hittites as either the Hyksos or the leading faction in the Hyksos hordes.
AnatHyskos scarabs from Canaan. The first mention of conflict between Egypt and Kadesh occurs toward the end of the twelfth dynasty. Bbetween the twelfth dynasty and the 20th Dynasty the territory of Egypt is under almost constant attack by the Hittites and their vassals such as the king of Kadesh yet the Hyksos relations with Lebanon and Syria remain soid, stable and peaceful even during the chaos of the Second intermediate and the next 5 dynasties which follow. With the defeat and expulsion of the Hyksos the rebellion in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Canaan begins. Thats a part of geo-political context of the battle that Kenneth Kitchen talks about. Rktect23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you really think what I am doing is vandalism, I suggest that we try WP:DR, because I don't believe that it is, and I'm would rather that we used our time to add to the article than argue about the references. I am going to not edit the article for two weeks (leaving it with your references). Cheers Markh23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
If the general feeling that the format of the references is not correct, then I will delete them again. See you all in 2 weeks. 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for leaving the references. I invite you to add to the article your own references, and if they inform better than anything I have added, we will replace it with the better statement. If we put most of our suggestions for things to be added or subtracted here on the talk page and discuss them generally we will improve the article more than if we attack each others edits. Rktect00:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
The statement, "we don't want what historians or anyone else believes, just the facts," shows an extreme misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. We don't care about whats "fact" or not. All we want are summations of other people's arguments. And we cannot use huge bibliographies that are not clearly tied into the text. They aren't actually references until they're tied into the text. This is a tertiary source, not a scholarly article. Treat it as such. No argumentation, no deduction. Only reporting what other people believe. We only care what historians believe. Thanatosimii05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
A belief involves taking something on faith, the exact opposite of a scientific aproach. Encyclopedias are useful precisely because they are not argumentative so people stating arguments and their point of view or opinion on things which are not factual, but rather false speculation, fantasy, opinion dont belong. The purpose of references and cites is to establish whats influencing an editors thinking so that it can be peer reviewed and a consensus arrived at. If Breasted says I read this inscription and translated it thus a reference should be given. Then when Pritchard comes along and adds on somthing more beside such as the location of a toponym Breasted mentioned that can be footnoted. All of that is useful. Many other Class A wikipedia articles have over 100 references and footnotes. The idea is that some people who don't want all of the information can get by with the opening, to the effect its a chariot battle between Egypt and the Hittites. Since its in the category of a military battle other people will want to know the force disposition, strategy, tactics, details of the command structure, formations, weapons and logistics for both sides. Still others will want to know how this ties in with the first mentions of the Sea Peoples, the history of the conflicts between Israel and the Levant, the rise of empires, even details like the terms of the treaty ending the conflict are worth mentioning Rktect01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
That is, however, not what wikipedia's guidelines tell us the encyclopedia should be like. We want to sum up the state of scholarship, somthing those notes are too lengthy for. Thanatosimii01:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This is the second request for comments about the contents of the references for this article. Can we have an opinion as to whether they stay or not. Cheers. Markh23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
They should definitely go. Further, his personal opinion about connecting the Battle of Kadesh with Biblical passages (e.g. Judges 4) and locations (i.e. the "headwaters of the Orontes", as opposed to Tell Nebi Mend, where everyone else puts it: e.g. see Kitchen, K.A, "Ramesside Inscriptions", Volume 2, Blackwell Publishing Limited, 1996, pp. 16-17 - which is available online and was deleted by Rktect as a reference) should also go - no scholar holds such a position. His addtions are so extensive that trying to undo them tricks Cluebot into thinking it's vandalism! 69.109.120.12903:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Rejecting Baines and Malek for Egypt and CAM for the opponents, or for that matter Pritchard and Breasted and not recognizing ANET hurts your credibility. Baines and Ma'lek head the list of sources for Tour Egypts discussion Ramesses II
Atlas of Ancient Egypt Baines, John; Malek, Jaromir 1980 Les Livres De France None Stated
Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, The Shaw, Ian; Nicholson, Paul 1995 Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers ISBN0-8109-3225-3
History of Ancient Egypt, A Grimal, Nicolas 1988 Blackwell None Stated
Monarchs of the Nile Dodson, Aidan 1995 Rubicon Press ISBN0-948695-20-x Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: invalid character
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, The Shaw, Ian 2000 Oxford University Press ISBN0-19-815034-2
Ramesses: Egypt's Greatest Pharaoh Tyldesley, Joyce 2000 Penguin Books ISBN Not Listed
Ramesses II: Greatest of the Pharaohs Menu, Bernadette 1999 Harry N. Abrams, Inc. ISBN0-8109-2870-1 (pbk.)
Valley of the Kings Weeks, Kent R. 2001 Friedman/Fairfax ISBN1-5866-3295-7
Who Were the Phraohs? (A history of their names with a list of cartouches) Quirke, Stephen 1990 Dover Publications ISBN0-486-26586-2
As to the location of Qdŝ (Kadesh and Kedesh) the Biblical references do a pretty good job of locating the northern sanctuary not on the plain but in the mountains.
Joshuah and Judges tell the Kadesh side of the story. In particular the story of Deborah regarding the campaign of Thutmosos III against the king of Kadesh at the battle of Meggiddo. In the Bible there are two different places which are Kadesh or Holy as the borders of Israel, one in the North and one in the south which is differentiated as Kadesh Barnea. Deborah gies and gets Barak from the Kadesh in the north to fight at Tanach on Kishons waters, ie; in the battle of Megiddo.
Strongs concordance differentiates between Kadesh and Kedesh with Kadesh generally but not always in the south and Kedesh in the north.
Gen 14:7 And they returned 07725 , and came 0935 to 0413 Enmishpat 05880, which [is] Kadesh 06946, and smote 05221 all the country 07704 of the Amalekites 06003, and also the Amorites 0567, that dwelt 03427 in Hazezontamar 02688.
The Amorites and Hazor are in the north as is Carmel
Jos 12:22 The king 04428 of Kedesh 06943, one 0259; the king 04428 of Jokneam 03362 of Carmel 03760, one 0259;
Jos 15:23 And Kedesh 06943, and Hazor 02674, and Ithnan 03497,
Jos 19:37 And Kedesh 06943, and Edrei 0154, and Enhazor 05877,
Jos 20:7 And they appointed 06942 Kedesh 06943 in Galilee 01551 in mount 02022 Naphtali 05321, and Shechem 07927 in mount 02022 Ephraim 0669, and Kirjatharba 07153, which [is] Hebron 02275, in the mountain 02022 of Judah 03063.
Jos 21:32 And out of the tribe 04294 of Naphtali 05321, Kedesh 06943 in Galilee 01551 with her suburbs 04054, [to be] a city 05892 of refuge 04733 for the slayer 07523 ; and Hammothdor 02576 with her suburbs 04054, and Kartan 07178 with her suburbs 04054; three 07969 cities 05892.
Jdg 4:9 And Deborah 01683 arose 06965 , and went 03212 with Barak 01301 to Kedesh 06943.
Jdg 4:10 And Barak 01301 called 02199 Zebulun 02074 and Naphtali 05321 to Kedesh 06943; and he went up 05927 with ten 06235 thousand 0505 men 0376 at his feet 07272: and Deborah 01683 went up 05927 with him.
2Ki 15:29 In the days 03117 of Pekah 06492 king 04428 of Israel 03478 came 0935 Tiglathpileser 08407 king 04428 of Assyria 0804, and took 03947 Ijon 05859, and Abelbethmaachah 062, and Janoah 03239, and Kedesh 06943, and Hazor 02674, and Gilead 01568, and Galilee 01551, all the land 0776 of Naphtali 05321, and carried them captive 01540 to Assyria 0804.
1Ch 6:72 And out of the tribe 04294 of Issachar 03485; Kedesh 06943 with her suburbs 04054, Daberath 01705 with her suburbs 04054,
1Ch 6:76 And out of the tribe 04294 of Naphtali 05321; Kedesh 06943 in Galilee 01551 with her suburbs 04054, and Hammon 02540 with her suburbs 04054, and Kirjathaim 07156 with her suburbs 04054.
All the reference books I listed are on any list of sources for the battle and anyone who doesn't know that shouldnt be editing the article.Rktect17:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Those references are doing nothing except make the article look awful. They are irrelevant, and they make no sense in the context of the article. But one thing he is right, the estimate of Hitties chariots in that battle in approximately 3,500 chariots. I will fix that. I also proved his theory about the number of troops was wrong asking him a question that he never answered, he probably realized his mistake. User:Super Knuckles 8:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC
How do references make the article look terrible? In what way is an article in a well known source on the battle of Kadesh irrelevant? Be more specific as to what you don't like. If its the references from ANET to the continuous history of Egyptian campaigns against Kadesh for the last two centuries preceeding the ambush of Rameses II in the mountains, scholarly articles have always included those in the past.Rktect18:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
3. William H McNeil and Jean W Sedlar, The Ancient Near East. OUP. 1962. The Official Record of the battle of Kadesh pp 15-19;
Discusses the evidence for the conflicts between the Egyptians and the allies of Kadesh as mentioned in the Amarna letters and the Egyptian campaign accounts and gives the Hittite and Egyptian versions of the treaty side by side.
5. James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East. OUP. 1968. Includes Egyptian campaign accounts of battles against Kadesh listed in chapter VI , the Asiatic campaign of Thutmosis III which encountered the king of Kadesh at Megiddo, p175, A campaign of Seti I in northern Palestine, p 182, The Amarna Letters p 262
This is the reference which lets us compute the number of men in a division and the size of the army with the division of set added. Since this is a chariot battle I'm curious where you are getting your estimate for the number of infantry on either side. Understand that I dont dispute there were infantry, but be specific as to the number of Shardana in Ramesses guard, how many are bowmen, how, many are spearmen, how many are armed with swords, how many are support troops.
8. Michael RoafCultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Equinox. 1990. ISBN0-8160-2218-6. includes information of the clash of the Egyptians and Hittites including the battle of Kadesh and maps of the regions controlled by the peoples named in the accounts.
Roaf discusses the battle in the geopolitical context of the clash of empires pp 132 - 150
11. Lionel CassonThe Ancient Mariners. PUP. 1991. ISBN06910147879. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help) Includes references to the Sea Peoples who participated in the battle
12. George BassA History of Seafaring. Walker and Company. 2004. ISBN08027-0-3909. Includes references to the Sea Peoples who participated in the battle
26. Michael GrantThe Rise of the Greeks. Charles Scribners Sons. 1987. Some of the Sea peoples involved in the battle are thought to have been identical with certain Mycenean Greek vassals of the Hittites in Anatolia.
Live the Horus: Mighty Bull, Appearing in Thebes; the Two Goddesses: Enduring of Kingship, like Re in Heaven; the Horus of Gold: Majestic of Appearances, Mighty of Strength; the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Lands, Lord of Making Offerings: Men-kheper-Re; the Son of Re, of his Body: Thut-mose Heqa-Maat, beloved of Montu, Lord of Thebes, Residing in Hermonthis, living forever.
Year 22, 2nd month of the second season, day 10. ...the land of Djahi, ...
Year 22, 4th month of the second season, day... Proceeding from Memphis, to slay the countries of the wretched Retenu, ...gathered in Megiddo. ...[3]
Year 1, 3rd month of the third season, day 10.
...Seti Mer-ne-Ptah...crushing the princes of Retenu, ...the princes of Syria (Kharu), ..."The wretched foe who is in the town of Hamath ...the town of Beth-Shan. ...an alliance with them of Pahel. ...the Prince of Rehob ...(Generally all the cities are near Beth-Shan.) Thereupon his majesty sent the first army of Amon, (named) "Mighty of Bows," to the town of Hamath, the first army of the (20) Re, (named) "Plentiful of Valor," to the town of Beth-Shan, and the first army of Seth, (named) "Strong of Bows," to the town of Yanoam.
[8] The alliance is Retnu, Kharu, Hamath, Pahel, Yanoam all near Beth Shean south of Kadesh
Year 1 of the Renaissance, ...the Shasu are plotting (5) rebellion. Their tribal chiefs are gathered in one place, waiting on the mountain ranges of Kharu
...[11]
Year 1 of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Men-maat-Re. ...the foe belonging to the Shasu from the fortress of Sile to the Canaan. ...the felling of trees around the "town of Yanoam." [12]
D = Campaign(s) in Djahi
The return [of] his majesty from Upper Retenu,having extended the frontiers of Egypt. The plunder which his majesty carried off from these Shasu
E = Campaign(s) in Upper Retenu
Seti I engaged with the Hittites in Syria. He is shown attacking a mountainous settlement, "the town of Kadesh." in Syria... the land of Kadesh and the land of Amurru.*
...his infantry, his chariotry, and the Sherden of his majesty's cap-turing,...in the year 5, 2nd month of the third season, day 9, (when) his majesty passed the fortress of Sile.
His infantry went on the narrow passes as if on the highways of Egypt.
Now after days had passed after this, then his majesty was in Ramses Meri-Amon, the town which is in the Valley of the Cedar. His majesty proceeded northward. After his majesty reached the mountain range of Kadesh, then his majesty went forward like his father Montu, Lord of Thebes, and he crossed (12) the ford of the Orontes, with the first division of Amon (named) "He Gives Victory to User-maat-Re Setep-en-Re. His majesty reached the town of Kadesh ....Now the wretched foe belonging to Hatti, with the numerous foreign countries which were with him, was waiting hidden and ready on the northeast of the town of Kadesh,
Year 5, 3rd month of the third season, day 9, under the majesty of (Ramses II). When his majesty was in Djahi on his second victorious campaign, the goodly awakening in life, prosperity, and health was at the tent of his majesty on the mountain range south of Kadesh.
... The lord proceeded northward, and his majesty arrived at a vicinity south of the town of Shabtuna.... [add full text of battle here]
Year 9, 4th month of the second season, day 1 ... When day had broken, he made to retreat the Asiatics .... They all come bowing down to him, to his palace of life and satisfaction, Per-Ramses-Meri-Amon-the-Great of Victories ...
Rameses never says how many men in a division but other sources such as the accounts of Thutmosis III indicate Amun, Re and Ptah taken together are 900 chariots so with Set thats 1200 and the Nearin or young men add 1000 for 2200 plus Rameses personal guard, 2200 - 2500 Egyptian Chariots 2500 plus 1000 for the Hittites, and three men to a chariot, plus a not insignificant number of support troops and camp followers. [[9]] Rktect17:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hiya, I'm willing to come in with a third-party opinion on the Request for Comment. To make sure I'm understanding what's being discussed, we're talking about the difference between these two versions in this diff, yes?[10] Or am I not understanding things correctly? --Elonka22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, on a quick look, it appears that they're not being used to reference anything in particular, but are instead being included as a kind of "Further reading" section. The leading numbers also look a bit odd, as though the list was copy/pasted from somewhere? What I'd recommend, is that if someone really feels that the references need to be included, is to link them to actual specific text in the article, per the normal WP:CITE footnote system. After that, a few extra sources for a "Further reading" section couldn't hurt, but I'd limit the quantity of them. As it was, the length of the reference section was dwarfing the actual size of the article. If someone really feels that all of the references need to be provided, I'd recommend putting them up on a webpage somewhere, and then we can link to that as a useful "External link." --Elonka19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
The references are footnoted so that first you get the information necessary to get the book in the reference, then the footnotes give book and page, in some cases with quotes that refer to a specific part of the article.
There is some disagreement over the number of troops involved, where the battle was fought, and whether or not the primary source is all spin or if its the speculations of the secondary sources that go too far. In some cases it helps to have references that are useful to people who want to read the primary sources or compare all the accounts of battles between Egypt and Kadesh. Rktect01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Rktect continues to make incorrect edits based on personal "research". His "references" are frequently explorations of personal opinions rather than the citation of a relevant scholarly work. Please note the following statement:
"With this basis, essentially all facts get distorted, especially when this is married to a totally uncritical use of historic sources, drawing all sorts of conclusions from them. In addition, the majority of the contributions are irrelevant to the topic at hand, or at best covered elsewhere. Showing disrespect for the mechanisms of Wikipedia, using bizarre markup and a lack of understanding of the level of quality required for an encyclopedia, the contributions of Rktect are unfit for Wikipedia.
"There are no cites from reliable sources presented supporting any of rktects claims, although he often provides enormous amounts of irrelevant or marginally relevant text and sources.
"This behaviour is not limited to historic metrology; rktect uses the same approach for other areas also (see list of articles affected, below).
"Even though it may be the case that there are fractions of rktects contributions that with massive rework could be usable, filtering and reviewing is far too expensive: the amount of work grossly exceeding that of adding new bona fide fresh content. Rktects modus operandi in talk pages only adds to the problem, making discussion in the conventional sense impossible."
This was not written in 2007, it was written in 2005. But it could easily have been written today. In that case, it resulted in Rktect being blocked from making changes to the article.
I can hardly add to the above quoted summary. Just look at this talk page! I believe he needs to be blocked from editing this article.Publik05:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
^ The Asiatic Campaigns of Thut-mose III: The Armant Stela (15th c. B.C.E.)ANET., p.234
^ fuller description from the Temple of Karnak and similar type of description from the Barkal stela. ANET., pp. 234-238.
^Almost all subsequent campaigns were directed against rebellious cities in Upper Retenu (that is, Syria) and not Lower Retenu, Djahi. The city of Kadesh and the kingdom of Mitanni were generally the focus of the king's military campaigns. See: ANET., pp. 238-242.
^ The settlement of the fortification of Men-khepru-Re (Thothmosis IV) with the Syrians (=Kharu)[of] his majesty's capturing in the town of Gez[er].
^ Campaign of Seti I in Northern Palestine," ANET., pp.253-254.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
