Who won the battle of Kadesh?

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,412
Republika Srpska
#12
If the Hittites had won then wouldn't they have recorded their victory in the same fashion that other civilizations during the era record their events?
They did. I listed the sources.

Also wouldn't the Hittite civilization have had flourished after that? Instead the Hittite empire dissolved.
The Hittite Empire dissolved long after Kadesh during the so-called Bronze Age collapse, a period which also saw the decline of Egypt.

The Kemetic civilization instead was the one that continued to flourish for centuries after that battle.
I don't see what this has to do with the result of Kadesh. Rome continued to flourish for centuries after Teutoburg. It doesn't mean that Teutoborg suddenly is a Roman victory.
 
Likes: gordopolis
Jun 2012
7,418
Malaysia
#13
It was a draw, essentially. A stalemate. Or a checkmate. The Egyptians had expected an overwhelming victory. But they were outsmarted & outmaneuvered by the Hittites. Rameses II was even surrounded & in grave danger at one point, IIRC.

Kadesh was not core territory of either Hattusa or Egypt. It was contested border province. So, whoever lost or won there, it wouldn't have made such a profound difference to either side.

It did perhaps have the effect of puncturing the aura of Egyptian invincibility, which had kind of prevailed until that time. That could explain the breaking away of some border provinces previously under Egyptian hegemony.
 
Likes: gordopolis
#14
It was a draw, essentially. A stalemate. Or a checkmate. The Egyptians had expected an overwhelming victory. But they were outsmarted & outmaneuvered by the Hittites. Rameses II was even surrounded & in grave danger at one point, IIRC.

Kadesh was not core territory of either Hattusa or Egypt. It was contested border province. So, whoever lost or won there, it wouldn't have made such a profound difference to either side.

It did perhaps have the effect of puncturing the aura of Egyptian invincibility, which had kind of prevailed until that time. That could explain the breaking away of some border provinces previously under Egyptian hegemony.
The bit in bold is spot on. The only thing I could add is that the Kadesh and general Syrian region was important in terms of controlling the trade routes. It's likely that a fair amount of tin came to Hittite and Egyptian lands from the east and through those parts, so if any of the two sides had completely taken control there they could have had a major advantage.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,815
Sydney
#15
it seems that both side had a brush and decided to settle things
the Hatti didn't want to conquer Egypt while Pharaoh was happy to call it a victory and sign a treaty
the telling point is that both side kept to the treaty
obviously the status quo was good enough
 
#18
Seeing how it was a Hittite invasion and the Hittites were halted, it's a clear Egyptian victory.
It wasn't a Hittite invasion. The time and place of battle was agreed beforehand by both sides, who each proceeded to gather up monumental armies and make their way towards Kadesh.

Equally, the Hittites were not halted. After the battle, Ramesses returned south towards Egypt with nothing, while the Hittites had gained Kadesh, Amurru and further lands to the south as well.

It was somewhere between a draw or pyrrhic victory in favour of the Hittites.
 

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,890
#20
I'm less familiar with this battle, but I didn't realize it was controversial to suggest the Egyptians didn't win. I always thought it was a stalemate.

Anyway, both sides do claim victory. The treaty of Kadesh has Egypt ceding the land the Hittites occupied to the Hittite Empire. So, whatever the outcome, the peace terms were in the favour of the Hittites, not the Egyptians.
 
Likes: gordopolis

Similar History Discussions