HUX 580 Ancient Near East

19

DURYEA

Tom Duryea

Dr. David Churchman

HUX 580 Ancient Near East

1 December 2004

The Battle of Kadesh

In the 13th century B.C., two large empires battled for domination of the Eastern Mediterranean. One the south, the Egyptians, under Ramesses I, Seti I and Ramesses II dominated North Africa, the Levant (Palestine) and encroached on modern Syria. The Hittite Empire on the north controlled Anatolia and spread south conquering minor vassal states in western Mesopotamia and northern Syria.

The two great powers clashed in the petty vassal state of Kadesh. The Egyptians and the Hittites fought over Kadesh many times before and Kadesh changed hands just as often. At the opening of this final battle of it, Kadesh was in Hittite hands. These two long time enemies concluded a peace after the Battle of Kadesh (Qadesh) with a marriage between a Hittite king and an Egyptian princess. The Battle of Kadesh represents the earliest known battle with a written record of the details of the conflict. What was the state of affairs in these two empires before the battle and why did they fight this battle?

Background of the Two Kingdoms

This period of Egyptian history (1540 – 1070 B.C) covers the 18th and 19th dynasties. The New Kingdom of Egypt (Kemp 183) finally became a mature state. The Sun God, Amun-Ra (or simply Amun), was the chief or supreme deity to the Egyptians. Unlike earlier Egyptian gods, Amun took the form of a man. Since Amun sired the kings through a reigning king’s wife, he was the father figure for all of Egypt.

Since the kings were demigods, they had unquestioned authority over the people of Egypt. The people did not find a need to change their lot in life and accepted whatever the king told them to do. During most of the New Kingdom Memphis served as the center of the royal court and higher administrative offices. Farther up the Nile River was the monumental center of the New Kingdom in Thebes. Vast tracts of farmland were under royal control to provide cereal grains for the temples. Devotion to the king, to the chief god Amun-Ra and the lesser gods consumed much of the Egyptians’ time.

Life in the New Kingdom centered on the Nile River. The kings traveled extensively throughout the empire and most travel was on boats along the Nile. Harvested grain also traveled by boat on the Nile. Most settlements and cities in the New Kingdom were within walking distance of the river.

The kings also had a taste for territorial expansion and supremacy over other peoples. The Egyptians had skirmishes with other kingdoms and empires including the Hittites, Assyrians and Mitanni. They also conquered lesser city-states and imposed suzerainty over them. At the time of the final battle at Kadesh, the Egyptians held territory along the Nile River from the sea well into Nubia, Canaan and most of the Levant. All of the Egyptian holdings were close to either the Nile River or the Mediterranean Sea.

The Hittite Empire was newer than the Egyptian one. The Hittites settled in Anatolia (modern Turkey) as early as 1900 B.C. They ruled from the city of Hattusas (Hattusha). (Conquistador) In the beginning of the Hittite empire, they enjoyed trade with the Assyrians. They became enemies with their neighbors and fought wars with Syria and Assyria. King Mursilis I (1620-1590 B.C) sacked Babylon in 1595 B.C. with the aid of mercenaries (from city-states friendly to their cause) and ended the Old Kingdom of Babylon. King Mursilis I was later killed, and the land to the east was lost.

The Kingdom of Mitanni (modern northern Iraq) put pressure on the weakened Hittite Empire, but the Hittites recovered and eventually dominated the Mitanni kingdom. The Hittite Empire grew under the reign of King Suppilulimas in the 14th century B.C. He built up an empire using alliances with smaller city-states that rivaled Egypt. The New Kingdom is the moniker given to the Hittite Empire during this period in history. King Suppilulimas took Syria and conquered parts of Canaan. The stage is set for conflict between the Hittites and the Egyptians. There was soon to be strife between the strong, long-lived empire of the Egyptians to the south and the newcomer Hittites to the north.

The Situation Putting the Two Empires at Odds

Virtually from the inception of the Egyptian Empire, the Egyptians considered the Levant region of southern Syria to be under their sphere of influence. The prize possession of this area was the Syrian port city of Byblos. (Leading Up to the Battle of Kadesh) Whether or not the Egyptians actually controlled this region, they still considered it part of their diplomatic and trade territory.

Trade was good between the ancient great powers of the Near East. Syria was the crossroads for all traffic between the kingdoms of Mesopotamia and the Aegean. Goods from southern Europe (Greece, the Balkans and Italy) came into the Near East at ports such as Byblos and Ugarit. The imported goods included copper and tin products, chemicals, tools, glass ingots, ivory, jewelry, luxury goods, timber, textiles and foodstuffs. Raw materials from the east including copper, tin, lapis lazuli and other products came from as far away as Persia and Afghanistan. (Leading Up to the Battle of Kadesh)

Whoever controlled these ports would gain the taxes from this trade. In addition, whichever empire controlled these trade routes would rise in importance and prestige. One empire would not easily cede this rich trade area to another. Control over this region was both economically and politically important and was synonymous with being a world power.

Egypt under the New Kingdom had strong interest in establishing an Asiatic empire. They used a mix of military campaigns and diplomacy to exert their influence over the petty city-states in the Levant and southern Syria. They established a framework of alliances in the region. At first, Mitanni was the principle foe of the Egyptians. Tuthmosis III had many military campaigns in the region and he backed up his victories with garrisoned forts and treaties leaving many of the defeated city-states under suzerainty o the Egyptians. He brought many of these local chiefs back to Egypt with him, trained them in his ways and returned them as puppet rulers. This resulted in the assessment that southern Syria was a permanent Egyptian territory.

Tuthmosis IV (1425-1417 B.C.) of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Mitanni that ended the enmity between the two kingdoms. Mitanni had little choice. The Hittite Empire was on the rise and the Mitanni could not fight a war on two fronts. The peace treaty between Egypt and Mitanni set the border in central Syria giving Kadesh to the Egyptians. Both countries prospered under this peace.

The Eleutheros River and its valley ran east west across the territory giving Egypt access to Kadesh and other holdings along the Orontes River. Besides being a trade route, Egypt traditionally used this route for military excursions to the north. Neither the Mitanni nor the Hittites gave the Egyptians trouble over this territory. Rather, it was an emerging fiefdom of Amurru. This area had not been a kingdom at the time of the signing of the treaty between Egypt and Mitanni, but strong tribal leaders made it a petty kingdom strong enough to trouble the peace in the region.

The Egyptian king Amenhotep III had a relative indifference to the region at the time so could not be bothered to send a military expedition to quell the insurrection. Other vassals in the area complained to the Pharaoh, but there was still inaction on the part of the king. Events became so bad that the Mitanni considered it necessary to intervene and take military action. This inactivity on the part of the pharaoh showed the Hittites that the territory was ripe for conquest.

Early in the 14th century B.C., the Hittites gained a strong king, Suppiluliumas. He assumed the throne in approximately 180 B.C. Suppiluliumas attacked the now weakened Mitanni kingdom (in modern northern Syria and Iraq). He also attacked the vassal states of Aleppo, Alalakh, Nuhashshe and Tunip. He then attacked the Mitanni Empire directly, crossed the Euphrates River and set siege on the capitol Washukkanni. Now that the power of the Mitanni Empire was all bone destroyed, he turned back to the west and conquered all of northern Syria including the city states of Ugarit and Kadesh.

Suppiluliumas took the king of Kadesh to the Hittite capitol of Hattusas (Boghzkoy in modern Turkey). Suppiluliumas returned him to Kadesh as king. He reestablished Kadesh as a vassal of Egypt. This was in fact a trick and the King of Kadesh actually tried to convince other vassal kings to leave Egypt for the Hittites.

This military and treasonous activity caused Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) to take action. He recalled the rebellious vassal leaders to Egypt, but to no avail. Suppiluliumas had a firm grip on northern Syria and the important cities there including Aleppo, Carchemish and Kadesh. The time for war between the Egyptians and the Hittites was at hand.

Characteristics of the Two Armies

The Egyptian and Hittite armies had very little in common. The Hittites were a warrior people who supplemented their army with mercenaries from allied city-states and petty kingdoms. The Egyptian army had a long and proud history of being professional soldiers. The armies used different weapons, different armament and different tactics. Even their chariots were significantly dissimilar and used in a different manner.

Egypt did use composite forces during this campaign. The majority of the Egyptian forces were regulars. This was the first major conflict for the Egyptians to have a significant number of foreign fighters within their ranks. The foreign fighters mixed in with the Egyptian regulars included Nubians, Sheridens and Libyans. Along the way north, loyal Canaanites joined the Egyptian force. (The Actual Battle of Kadesh) This force consisted of four armies (named Amun, P’Re, Ptah and Sutekh) of between 4,000 and 5,000 each for a total of between 16,000 and 20,000 ground troops. Ramesses elite troops were in the Amun army. There were also an estimated 2,000 Egyptian chariots supplementing the infantry.

The Egyptian chariots were small, light and agile. One horse pulled them. Oftentimes, the chariot would have only one warrior instead of having a driver and an archer. The Egyptians had long been skilled in using these chariots in battle. The number of chariots usually represented ten percent of the numbers in the infantry.

The Egyptian army still used the armament of the Bronze Age. Light bronze armor and shields were the issue to the infantry. Bronze helmets donned the heads of the infantry. The infantry also used spears, bows, axes and swords. The Egyptian charioteers wore bronze scale mail armor.

The Egyptian tactics were simple. The chariots would approach the enemy line; turn to retreat back to their own line and the onboard archers would fire at the enemy line while readying themselves for a new attack. (The Hittite Empire)

One problem that the Egyptian army had was the long march to battle. The Egyptains were as much as a two-week march from home. This meant a long resupply line. This also meant that the infantry and the horses were fatigued from the long march. Ramesses II also wanted to arrive at the battlefield ahead of the Hittites. This would add to the fatigue of his army.]

The Egyptians were motivated. They wanted to reclaim their northern territories that were “stolen” from them by the upstart Hittites. They could smell blood and were ready for revenge.

Out of necessity, the Hittite army was composed of Hittite regulars with many mercenary forces. These mercenaries were from allied city-states with enmity towards the Egyptians. These foreign fighters included a massive confederation from Aleppo, Naharin, Arvad, Mesa, Luka, Kezweden, Ekereth, Kode, Nuges, Mesheneth, Carchemish, Canaan, Kadesh and the Sea Peoples (Karkisha and Lukka) (Ramesses II's Battle of Kadesh Inscriptions). All of these fighters shared hatred towards the Egyptians. The strength totals for the Hittites were approximately 20,000 infantry and 3,000 chariots. The interesting point is that the Hittite infantry did not engage the enemy.

The mercenaries for the opposing armies also fought with different motivations. The Egyptian mercenaries fought for regular pay. The Hittite mercenaries did not fight for regular pay. They fought solely for the spoils of war, forgoing pay from the king.

Another difference between the armies is their uniforms. The Egyptians had their regular uniforms whenever and wherever they fought. The Hittites had different uniforms that were appropriate for the location of any given battle. This is similar to the modern United States military having different colored uniforms depended upon the theater of operations.

The choice of weapons was also different for the Hittites. The Hittites were the first to successfully use iron weapons in battle, which gave them an advantage over Bronze Age armies. Although iron weapons were extent used by the Hittites, most hand weapons were sickle swords and battle-axes made of bronze. Their iron weapons consisted of thrusting spears and short stabbing daggers. The infantry also wore helmets and bronze scale armor, sometimes covered by cloth coveralls.

The Hittite chariots were also different form those the Egyptians used. The Hittite chariots were larger and heavier than the chariots employed by the Egyptians and thus less maneuverable. The Hittite chariots were strong enough to carry three warriors. One warrior drove the chariot while the other two used weapons such as composite bow and arrows or a long thrusting spear. The spear was the main weapon aboard the chariots. The tactics used by the Hittite charioteers was different from the Egyptians also. The Hittite charioteers would drive their chariots directly into the enemy line, running over the enemy infantry in the process. The long thrusting spear was plunged into the enemy line for further mayhem. Special training for the horses for the Hittite chariots ensured they would remain calm throughout the charge.