Talk:Battle of Kadesh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Ancient Near Eastern warfare task force (c. 4000 BC–c. 700 BC)

Is this battle the same as Battle of Khadesh ?
-- PFHLai 07:51, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

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)
well, I disagree... dab 07:05, 1 Nov 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.

Contents

[edit] Thutmosis III

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

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.

[edit] Thutmosis IV

THOTHMOSIS IV (Late Bronze Age, 14th c. B.C.E.):

"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].

[edit] Seti I Campaign against Kadesh

SETI I (Late Bronze Age, 13th c. B.C.E.):

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 ....

[edit] Ramesses II

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 the town 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)

[edit] Please add only links to copyright material

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 III 00:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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 Orontontes 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)

[edit] Kadesh in the mountains

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 Syria the 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)

[edit] Year?

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. john k 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. john k 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. john k 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? john k 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. john k 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."
[Kadashman-Enlil II, Kassite king of Babylonia (c. 1264-55 BC)] Rktect 22:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

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. john k 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. john k 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. john k 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)

[edit] Rameses II, Moses, and Chronology

The (Second) Trojan War occured ca. the 2nd Battle of Kadesh.

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)

[edit] Egyptian tactical victory?

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).

Matthew king 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Kadesh_426b.html"