Battle of Kadesh

[ROYAL SIPHAI]

I have been looking into this battle between the Egyptians and Hittites.

Who were the real winners of this battle the Egyptians or the Hittites???

[Sar1n]

Hiigarans....oh wait, wrong battle of Kadesh

Well. Hittite goal was to keep Ramesses from taking the city of Kadesh, and they succeeded. They failed to capitalize the advantage they gained during battle, but that's another thing.

[DAVIDE]

Monuments erected by Ramses all over Egypt showed us the egyptians had won. But it was just propaganda. In reality the battle ended with a draw. Few years after the battle, egyptians stipulated with hittites a peace treaty (document survived till present days) around 1269 BC more or less, with the purpose of ceasing the hostilities and to face the most serious threat represented by the Assyrians who, in the meantime, were penetrated into the hittite border till the city of Karkemis, Turkey. Hattusili's purpose was to forge an allience with Ramses and stop together this new invasion

[ROYAL SIPHAI]

Monuments erected by Ramses all over Egypt showed us the egyptians had won. But it was just propaganda. In reality the battle ended with a draw. Few years after the battle, egyptians stipulated with hittites a peace treaty (document survived till present days) around 1269 BC more or less, with the purpose of ceasing the hostilities and to face the most serious threat represented by the Assyrians who, in the meantime, were penetrated into the hittite border till the city of Karkemis, Turkey. Hattusili's purpose was to forge an allience with Ramses and stop together this new invasion

Thanks for the answer

Its been mind boggling me especially how Ramses thinks he won mostly did it to be popular with his subjects.

I wonder if a Egyptian-Hittite alliance worked I dont think the Assyrians will able to penetrate the region a lot since two powers are brothers in arms.

[DAVIDE]

Worked some time. But Hittite empire was so weakened they couldn't stop the incursions by sea people into their territory. They lost the sphere of influence they had in the past, lost many towns and moved their capital elsewhere. Final hit was given by the internal non stop civil wars and claims to the throne occourred through the years. Population started a diasporah, and after abandoning their homes they moved to middle east and forged a pseudo new empire called new hittite under the assyrian law.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

My post on another thread:

We do usually get the whole kadesh was stalemate and all that. But consider that if Ramses' reinforcements showed up behind the Hittite army and the Hittites were already engaged in the front, then the Hittites would have to have broken out of the encirclement. Apparently the Hittites escaped across the river, but this could only have been accomplished if the Hittites broke out of the encirclement. We should also consider that Muwatallis sent more chariots to attack the back of the newly arriving Egyptians to save his encircled army and most likely shattered these new divisions which saved Ramses from annihilation. Ramses however never Mentions this for some reason but it is too evident to miss. So I have come to the conclusion that Ramses retreated to a safe distance with Kadesh in view and the Hittites retreated to Kadesh only because the night time was coming. The next day Ramses retreated and the Hittites followed him as far as Damascus and annexed that whole area. So it probably wasn't any treaty after the battle that allowed Ramses to retreat but merely the night time.

This is what it actually looked like:
EGYPTIANS
HITTITES
EGYPTIANS<----- More Egyptians arrive
HITTITES<------------Hittites surprise the new Egyptians

EGYPTIANS
HITTITES--------->Beleaguered Hittites retreat
EGYPTIANS
HITTITES


EGYPTIANS------->Egyptians retreat to safe distance away from Kadesh to rest due to another Hittite surprise assault
EGYPTIANS------->
HITTITES--------->Hittites pursue but return to Kadesh due to the night, only to continue pursuing Egyptians to Damascus on the next day


It seems to me that it was because of Ramses' reckless spending and failed military campaigns that the Egyptian empire fell apart and never regained an actual foothold onto Asia. Merneptah for example struggled against a bunch of Canaanites and then the kingdom of Israel was formed and that was pretty much the end of any Egyptian domination anywhere or Egyptians being a super power.

You can say it was because the Hittites essentially started the Iron age and were an empire bent on conquering the world. The Hittites produced the first Iron weapons, although by the time of Kadesh only the generals and kings in the Hittite army got to use iron weapons and probably the royal guards. They also built large cities in heights and made super thick walls, it was essentially how the Incas built their cities but the Hittites did it way better.


-Ramses failed at Kadesh but gets credit for supposedly winning
-claimed to be the greatest Pharaoh but essentially crippled Egypt long term in the financial sense and lost most of Syria (at some point the Canaanites, Edomites and Moabites allied with the Hittites and he had to defeat these or else lose all territory in Asia, only reason he won was because the Hittites were busy fighting Kaskans, Assyrians and Ahhiyawans)
-makes multiple claims that he fought great campaigns in Nubia, Libya and Kadesh under his father when this was clearly a certain Prince Mehy
-he supposedly went as far north as Dapur and Tunip and this is supposed to be spectacular even though the Hittite army wasn't even there to oppose him
Why then is he considered, by the mainstream history fanatic, historian and society in general, to be the greatest Egyptian pharaoh?
All he did was stop a Sea people invasion, prevented the loss of Canaan, and fought a single campaign in Nubia but came to a grinding halt (if not a long term failure) in Syria (even though he assembled the largest army known until then and was many time unopposed).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Muwatallis relief with an epic beard

the Assyrian army was perhaps a 50,000 man field army maybe from the time of Shalmaneser III but more likely only from the time of Tiglath Pileser III and only on certain occasions. With an about 80,000 man total in the time of Tiglath Pileser III and up to 100,000 from the times of Sargon II and Sennacherib. So I definitely wouldn't say that it was the largest force until the 1900's as countless empires managed to surpass the total army sizes while Napoleon, Rome, Ottomans and modern empires armies surpassed those field armies before the 1900s.

Interestingly the largest armies before that were Sargon of Akkad and Lugal Zage Si's apparently 6,000 - 10,000 man field armies, Hammurabi's 20,000, Ramses' 25,000 man field army, Muwatallis' 20,000 man army and King David's apparently 20,000 - 30,000 man army (these seem to be the largest armies ever assembled as a single field army until Assyria managed to assemble 40,000 men in the 800s BC and later on up to 50,000 or more after Tiglath Pileser III).

Ramses claim that the Hittites, with a relatively low amount of manpower when compared to Egypt and Babylon, was able to build armies of 50,000 men in Bronze age times is absolutely false. His inscription for the Battle of Kadesh seems to compare the amount of chariots to infantry and assumes that both are roughly based on one another. However the Hittites seem to have succeeded in all conquests by having roughly a larger amount of cavalry than other empires. If you take into consideration that based on Hittite and Egyptian sources the armies of Kadesh were the largest armies ever assembled by both empires. We know that an Egyptian division has 5000 troops and that they have 5 divisions total meaning that roughly 25000 was the Egyptian number and this number defines that there were 2500 chariots. Muwatallis most likely built up his army for his confrontation with Egypt but managed to do this with a feudal or vassalage system and had roughly 10 infantry divisions of 1000 men each and the chariots which seem to be its own arm for the first time; the Hittites were known for their large chariotry use we should not doubt Ramses' given number of 3500 chariots, Ramses assumes that this amount of chariots determines the amount of infantry which Ramses assumes must be 35000+ infantry as it is the organization in the Egyptian army.
However it is more likely that the chariotry consists of half the Hittite army which would be placed at a couple hundred more than 10,000 and that the infantry must also consist of about another 10000 because the Hittites do not have a populace which can support an army any larger than that. Egypt (plus Palestine and Syria) on the other hand (as does Babylon but not Assyria) has a large enough populace that indeed could have supported a 25000 man field army (this of course does not include the amount of garrison troops across various cities). If we look at the army in Seti's time then we see that he only had 3 divisions which makes his field army at roughly 15000 as was the army in Thutmosis III time (Thutmosis apparently having assembled the largest Egyptian army up to that point but most being conscripts). So if we take into account that Muwatallis had 20000 troops for one campaign (but 500 chariots were his own and another 500 were his brother's who was a king in his own right, while the others were from the system of vassalage) and that the populace was almost double in the time of his predecessors (ie Suppiluliumas) then we can assume that Muwatallis did this knowingly that this might put the rest of his territories somewhat undefended and that he truly brought the largest field army that he could. Suppiluliumas' field army in Syria (which was most likely the largest to that time) may not have numbered more than 15000 or may even numbered closer to 10000.

According to Egyptian military doctrine, it was not unusual to split ones army into divisions for travelling and strategic as well as logistical reasons. Seti did this; as he travelled up the Way of Horus the three divisions were together but were then split up into the divisions in order to fight a one day military operation against four nearby cities at the same time. This allowed the Egyptians to attack four cities in one day but also allowed the Egyptians to cover lots of ground. The end result was Seti's spectacular victory and the destruction of half of the Canaanite coalition's army. Seti himself commanded the Seth division while his grand vizier and chief of staff commanded the Amun and Ra divisions.
Seti also delegated commands of the divisions in his campaigns against the Libyans, in which he himself commanded the Seti division, a certain Prince Mehy commanded a division and another commander (Grand Vizier?) commanded one of the other divisions (Ra and Amun).
This Prince Mehy was also a commander in Seti's Kadesh campaigns and was the main commander (as Seti did not take part) in the Nubian campaigns (although Ramses gives himself the credit for all of these cases, his claims again prove to be propaganda).

Questions?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

By the way my personal belief is that the Hittites won a decisive victory over the Egyptians, not only did they destroy half the Egyptian army at low casualties themselves, but they also conquered Damascus and the formed an alliance with Moab, Edom and the Canaanites. While these allies did not survive they allowed for Ramses to expend his resources and was forced to retreat after reaching Damascus instead of directly marching Northwards. Only later did he march on Tunip but again had to retreat. You also have to keep in mind that Muwatallis was able to simultaneously fight and defeat the Egyptians, Assyrians and the new super power Ahhiyawa.

[white-wolf]

A Hittite win. Kadesh was remained at the client of Hittites. I am not saying that because my hometown is less than 100 kms to ancient capital of Hittites.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Agreed. Hittites capitalized the Phoenician coast and annexed Damascus all while making alies with Edom and Moab and backed a Canaanite revolt against Egypt. The only reason the Hittites did not invade Egypt was because the had to simultaneously combat Assyria, Ahiyyawa (Achaea? Trojan War?) and the Kaska tribes of the North.

[DAVIDE]

By the way my personal belief is that the Hittites won a decisive victory over the Egyptians, not only did they destroy half the Egyptian army at low casualties themselves, but they also conquered Damascus and the formed an alliance with Moab, Edom and the Canaanites. While these allies did not survive they allowed for Ramses to expend his resources and was forced to retreat after reaching Damascus instead of directly marching Northwards. Only later did he march on Tunip but again had to retreat. You also have to keep in mind that Muwatallis was able to simultaneously fight and defeat the Egyptians, Assyrians and the new super power Ahhiyawa.

I disagree. Egyptians won morally here even if it ended with a draw. Apart that the number of casualties for both sides is the result of suppositions by historians. First of all, Muwuattali died few time after the battle, his death caused a dynastic crisis between his son Urhi-Teshub, later called Mursili III, and Hattusili III. Hattussili's with a coup d'etat took control of the empire and forced the nephew Mursili III to flee in Egypt. Ramses took advantage of the situation and sent an army first to punish the palestinians who, previously before Quadesh, forged an anti-egyptian alliance with the hittite. And then sent an offensive to Syria and regained controls of many towns lost precedently ( point 1, EGYPTIANS REGAINING LANDS). Second of all, the war with Hittite served to upgrade totally the egyptian military equipment and improve their warfare while hittites never saw an improvement here. (point 2, EGYPTIANS UPDATING THEIR WARFARE) Third of all, while Kadesh for hittite was the start of the end and took to the final decline due to endless claims to the throne and internal civil wars, in Egypt Ramses consolidated his power more than ever and became one of the best and most successful pharaohs of all time in their history (point 3, RAMSES AFTERMATH AND HITTITE DECLINE)

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The Battle of Kadesh happened in 1274 BC and Muwatallis died in 1266 BC, whether he died or not does not change the decisiveness of the Battle of Kadesh. The Hittite decline was ultimately caused by the resurgence of Assyria after Muwatallis and the invasions of the Sea peoples into Anatolia. Like I said before Ramses only regained Canaan and Damascus after the Hittites had allied with Edom, Moab and the Canaanite rebels so that he could bring his army back into Anatolia to face other threats. The immediate result of Kadesh was the loss of practically half of Ramses' army and the Hittite conquest of Damascus as well as Canaan, Moab and Edom as allies. If this battle isn't decisive then Austerlitz isn't decisive and neither is Cannae. Muwatallis in his own life time was very successful.

Ramses attacked Tunip practically unopposed and then lost that territory and only had to defeat Edom, Moab and Canaan (neither of which were super powers) but Muwatallis on the other hand faced 3 superpowers and some minor powers. The decline of the Hittite Empire has nothing to do with Kadesh and the Egyptian rearmament and change in warfare only lasted until around the age of Ramses III. It seems that Ramses was only a successful Pharaoh at home but not abroad in his military campaigns (unless you count minor kingdoms).

[DAVIDE]

The Battle of Kadesh happened in 1274 BC and Muwatallis died in 1266 BC, whether he died or not does not change the decisiveness of the Battle of Kadesh. The Hittite decline was ultimately caused by the resurgence of Assyria after Muwatallis and the invasions of the Sea peoples into Anatolia. Like I said before Ramses only regained Canaan and Damascus after the Hittites had allied with Edom, Moab and the Canaanite rebels so that he could bring his army back into Anatolia to face other threats. The immediate result of Kadesh was the loss of practically half of Ramses' army and the Hittite conquest of Damascus as well as Canaan, Moab and Edom as allies. If this battle isn't decisive then Austerlitz isn't decisive and neither is Cannae. Muwatallis in his own life time was very successful.

Ramses attacked Tunip practically unopposed and then lost that territory and only had to defeat Edom, Moab and Canaan (neither of which were super powers) but Muwatallis on the other hand faced 3 superpowers and some minor powers. The decline of the Hittite Empire has nothing to do with Kadesh and the Egyptian rearmament and change in warfare only lasted until around the age of Ramses III. It seems that Ramses was only a successful Pharaoh at home but not abroad in his military campaigns (unless you count minor kingdoms).

No. It changed alot considering Muwattali's death took to the political instability. Outta control. Instability that lasted till the end of the empire, less than a hundred years later when Hattusas was sacked, destroyed and abandoned. Sea people have few to do with the fall, if not they were just the ones who gave the final hit to a dyeing culture To put it in medical term, Assysians were the pneumonia who killed a weakened and without antibodies victim. A civilization who was already disintegrated from the inside by the endless throne wars occourred and unable to defend themselves military.

To sum it up after the events of Qadesh:

Last day of battle Muwattali asks for a truce. Battle is over.

|
V

After the egyptians retreated, hittites secretly attack and occupy the province of Damascus.

|
V

Year later Damascus is recaptured by egyptians

|
V

The caananites takes the war between the two as an egyptian weakness and revolt.

|
V

Ramses II sends a force in Palestine and occupies towns previously lost and kills the rebellion.

|
|
V

8th year of his reign he sends another force in Syria via Palestine and regains towns previously lost.

|
|
V

Ramses taking advantage of political instability in Hittitia, makes raids deep into hittite territory along the Orontes

|
V

Other ten years of hostilities, peace treaty asked by hittites in anti-assyrian key.


True that the Egyptian original purpose of taking Kadesh and sourroundings failed miserably. But remaining years of hostilities went in favour of egyptians. Some years later the hittite empire collapsed. Politically nonexistant and unable to stop the raids by neighbors, after the sack of Hattusas the empire was split in a great amount of city states, all trying to save the face and the remnants of indipendence they had thanks to peace treaties with the enemies or becoming vassals. Inhabitants then decided to flee from their original lands and settle in northen Syria and they founded some towns like Carchemish, Sinjerli, Marash etc. but still remaining vassals of the assyrians.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

To sum it up after the events of Qadesh:

Last day of battle Muwattali asks for a truce. Battle is over.

Never proven, in fact the Hittite source does not mention this and neither does the treaty. Muwatallis has 10,000 infantry and most of his chariots, while Ramesses has like half of his starting force.

After the egyptians retreated, hittites secretly attack and occupy the province of Damascus.

The Hittites most likely attacked Damascus in a surprise but it is unlikely that Ramses' scouts would not have known this, more likely he was too battered to fight back.

Year later Damascus is recaptured by egyptians

Actually Damascus was captued two years later in 1272 but only because Hattusili who was posted in Syria, was ordered to retreat back by Muwatallis. This was in the same year that Ramses defeated the Caananites, Edomites and Moabites.

The caananites takes the war between the two as an egyptian weakness and revolt.

The Canaanite revolt occured before Ramses captured Damascus but also fought Edom and Moab, whom according to sources Muwatallis intended to use them as a shield so that even if Ramses beat them he could not advance farther north (Hattusili had withdrawn his force from Syria and so Ramses was forced to retreat for lack of being able to defeat them)

Ramses II sends a force in Palestine and occupies towns previously lost and kills the rebellion.

Again, 1272 not afterwards.

8th year of his reign he sends another force in Syria via Palestine and regains towns previously lost.

This campaign was relatively easy as Syria was rather undefended but strategically it did not change anything as the Hittites quickly regained this territory and Ramses was required to come back multiple times to change this (one campaign for Tunip and another for Dapur).

Ramses taking advantage of political instability in Hittitia, makes raids deep into hittite territory along the Orontes

Tunip, Qatna and Dapur; all these campaigns were strategically insignificant and did not affect the Hittites significantly

Other ten years of hostilities, peace treaty asked by hittites in anti-assyrian key.

After the death of Muwatallis in about 1266, Assyria again freed itself from the Hittites (most likely without any conflict as the war between Hattusili and Urhi Tessub was happening), Assyria chose become hostile to Babylon and the Hittites but also killed the Pharaohs envoys and representatives in foreign lands which caused Ramses to be in almost a state of war with Assyria. Assyria had been in a perpetual state of war with Babylon and the Hittites since the time of Suppiluliamas until Muwatallis was able to make Assyria "loyal" to him by diplomatic means but also with operations on the Euphrates (most likely taking place before Kadesh).

No. It changed alot considering Muwattali's death took to the political instability. Outta control. Instability that lasted till the end of the empire, less than a hundred years later when Hattusas was sacked, destroyed and abandoned. Sea people have few to do with the fall, if not they were just the ones who gave the final hit to a dyeing culture To put it in medical term, Assysians were the pneumonia who killed a weakened and without antibodies victim. A civilization who was already disintegrated from the inside by the endless throne wars occourred and unable to defend themselves military.

True that the Egyptian original purpose of taking Kadesh and sourroundings failed miserably. But remaining years of hostilities went in favour of egyptians. Some years later the hittite empire collapsed. Politically nonexistant and unable to stop the raids by neighbors, after the sack of Hattusas the empire was split in a great amount of city states, all trying to save the face and the remnants of indipendence they had thanks to peace treaties with the enemies or becoming vassals. Inhabitants then decided to flee from their original lands and settle in northen Syria and they founded some towns like Carchemish, Sinjerli, Marash etc. but still remaining vassals of the assyrians.

Saying that Kadesh is not decisive is sort of like saying that Sedan was not decisive because Wilhelm II lost World War 1. The significance of an actual battle cannot be determined by the life of a monarch as Muwatallis was outright successful. It was the civil conflict between his son and brother that caused inconveniences for the Hittites, but even this was not in any way decisive as Hattusili got the empire working again and continued for another five kings or so. Eventually after another civil war or revolt that weakened the empire and then "Sea peoples" and Assyrians were able to take advantage of the situation. So in fact it was the second civil war which weakened the empire and not the first one. In Hattusili's war, there were barely any battles and Hattusili managed to cement his power for himself.
Ramses was only successful in taking Damascus from the Hittites, Muwatallis was successful in not being devoured by three major powers. Sure his successors failed but that could hardly be attributed to himself or to anything that Ramses inflicted upon him, the defeat of his successors should be more attributed to the geographical location of Hatti. So in that sense Kadesh was as decisive as Cannae with the difference being that the Hittites were not inflicted a serious defeat at that time (not until the grandsons of Hattusili was the strategic situation ever truly in question or dangerous for the Hittites). In terms of decisive battle for the ancient times and the bronze age as well as a good part of the iron age, Kadesh was the largest and most decisive battle.