WI: A more decisive Battle of Kadesh

What would happen if in the Battle of Kadesh Ramesses II didn't capture the Hittite spys and find out that the Hittite army was close by ready to ambush?


What if Ramesses II decided to be patience and not split up his forces in the first place?

How would this effect Egypt? The Hittites?

I did a search and couldn't find any prior discussion, so sorry if already discussed.

Edit: What I think basically happened in the battle was captured Hittie messengers planted by the Hittites that said the Hittie army had gone away. Ramesses II went ahead to siege the city, however he captured Hittite spys that when interrogated said that the Hittite army was behind the city ready to attack. The Hittites attack cutting off Ramesses from the main army, but he was able to rally his troops and break free of the Hittites. The Hitties after a breif fight with the Egyptians went back into Kadesh. Ramesses wasn't able to sustain the siege and left.
 
Last edited:

archaeogeek

Banned
What would happen if in the Battle of Kadesh Ramesses II didn't capture the Hittite spys and find out that the Hittite army was close by ready to ambush?


What if Ramesses II decided to be patience and not split up his forces in the first place?

How would this effect Egypt? The Hittites?

I did a search and couldn't find any prior discussion, so sorry if already discussed.

Wasn't the battle claimed won by both sides...
 
I thought the Hittites actually won the fight. :confused:

Anyways since it's pretty far out in history, butterflies will be enormous.
 
Wasn't the battle claimed won by both sides...

That why I'm asking if it was more decisive. Maybe I should ask a more clearer question. What if the Hitties managed to kill Ramesses II in battle? What if Ramesses II had kept his army together and defeated the Hittites and captured Kadesh?
 
Egypt being decisively beaten (particularly if Ramses II dies) might attenuate the New Kingdom's Imperial overstretch, resulting in more domestic stability. Perhaps Egypt could retain it's independence longer?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Egypt was beaten. It's just Egyptian tradition to make everything a victory.

It was a glorious fighting movement towards the south! :mad:
I honestly have no idea. The lack of imperial overstretch would be interesting as it would probably screw over the Hittites big time.

If it goes too badly, this will probably significantly affect jewish traditions when Judea wins its independence (Qadesh is only about 3 centuries after the first known mention of the Hapiru), as it would probably end up not being under Egyptian control at the time... Exodus from the north instead? Something entirely different?
 
Decisive Egyptian victory would make overstretch an insane issue and risk the complete ruin of the Hittites. Everybody loses.

Now a decisive Hittite victory is the opposite. If, for example, Ramseses II is captured and ransomed, the result would be extraordinary. The Hittites aren't only secured on one front with an extra couple border cities - they're suddenly and massively flush. IIRC, the relative wealth of the two states made it the equivalent of a war between Canada and North Korea. If anything, the risk to the Hittites in that case would be of the post-Columbian Spanish sort.

Obviously, Egypt might benefit from being pushed on its back foot to reevaluate things, but it's also possible the Hittites come out of this with real gains (as opposed to mere overstretch).
 
Given that we really don't have any objective view of how things went down at the Battle of Kadesh, as well as our extreme paucity of sources regarding the time period in general, I find counter-factual speculation about such ancient events to be quite problematic.

However, best we can figure is that Kadesh was actually a strategic defeat for the Egyptians and that in the coming years Egypt and the Hittite Empire moved towards a more diplomatic solution, agreeing to share the Levant, arranging royal marriages etc. Many archaeologists speculate that this is the reason the Egyptian Army is portrayed so negatively in the descriptions of Kadesh, due to Rameses' desire to forego a military solution and focus instead on a diplomatic one.

Now assuming a worse Egyptian defeat, I don't see a whole lot changing in the broader scheme of things. Perhaps the Hittites gain a few more Palestinian city states and the "line" in the Levant is drawn further to the south. However the need to eventually reach some sort of diplomatic solution still exists. Even if another campaign is undertaken to avenge Rameses II, eventually I fail to see why Egypt wouldn't pursue a similar course to OTL.

A more decisive Egyptian victory might change things a bit more as Egypt will undoubtedly try to extend it's realm further to the North with varying degrees of success. However the distances, terrain, and logistics involved in gaining anything outside of the Levant make any such gains unlikely. That being said without the need to somehow accomodate the Hittites, I think you could see prolonged tensions in the region as Hatti tries to regain it's lost territory.
 

Keenir

Banned
Egypt was beaten. It's just Egyptian tradition to make everything a victory.

the Pharoah survived to get home. that makes the sacrifice of soldiers worthwhile (I've heard that argument to explain it)


seriously, though, because the Hittites claimed victory at Kadesh, that actually caused infighting among the royals in Hattusha - leading to the end of Hittite civilization. (the Hittites may be hte one and only civilization ever to be founded on an oath for the royal family not to turn on one another - and to honor that agreement for more than a generation)
 
Top