The battle of Kadesh is the first battle in history that can be vaguely reconstructed using records from the battle itself. Of course, Rameses II’s account of the battle various widely from Hattusili, the king of the Hittite empire. Rameses said that it was a crushing victory for the Egyptians whereas Hattusili said that Egypt was too weak to defend it boarders and take Kadesh. This treaty also happens to be the very first, that we know of, signed in history. The treaty is important because it establishes balance as the Hittites and Egyptians were the “superpowers” of the Ancient Near East of the time. This treaty changed Western Thought and provides a stunning look at international relations of that time.

The battle [and the subsequent treaty] represent the first time in that region’s history that the Haberu peoples and their surrounding tribes finally get some independence. Outside forces such as the Hittites, the Egyptians, or the Phoenicians would not control them now. Before Kadesh, Palestine was nothing more then a buffer state for the Egyptians and Hittites. The region of Palestine held cedar trees that both Egypt and the Empire of the Hittites needed for the wealth and survival of either country. Neither civilization could keep a strong hold here. Because the area was so volatile and no one power could establish dominance, Egypt and the Hittites needed to rule through vassal kings, rather than through direct administration.

For two-hundred years, the two powerful nations jockeyed for control of the region now known as Palestine. By this time, the Egyptians were a militaristic nation. Her boarders were naturally protected by deserts on her west and south, the Sinai Peninsula to her east, and the Mediterranean Sea to her north. The armies that were drafted were done so for a short time, usually during the spring, and then sent home. Engagements never required more than two corps of troops…Kadesh was different.

Rameses needed to prove his reign had legitimacy and that he could defend Egypt’s boarders. Rameses set out to show that he could take Kadesh, as his Father Seti I did. Rameses II was an extremely narcissistic man, by our standards. He made his plans for the re-capture of Kadesh known. In fact, Rameses’ plans for Kadesh were the subject of open discussion in the Egyptian court. If he would have had satellite TV, he would have gotten on it and proclaimed his plan for the city. He led about 20,000 soldiers, in 4 corps of about 5,000 men each, on a month’s march to the city of Kadesh. This battle is important because it is the first battle that modern historians can actually re-constructed using reenactments and accounts from the battle itself. Also, interestingly enough, Egyptian kings would always lead military campaigns in the spring as to ensure that there would be enough grain to go around for his or her troops. In spring of 1274 B.C.E. ¼ of his force set up camp outside of Kadesh.

His men captured 2 Bedouin nomads and queried them as to the whereabouts of the Hittite army. They said that they had no idea of any army in the area. Rameses went to bed that night relieved. He thought he could march into Kadesh and simply take it. His euphoria was dashed when his men captured two Hittite scouts the next day. Badly beaten and brought before the king they revealed that there was in fact a Hittite army on a nearby hill, they claimed that the army was “more numerous then the sands of the river bank.”1

Rameses was terrified to say the least, but he referred to the Hittite army as the “a feminine ones” because of their long hair. He sent messengers to his other corps of troops. The next day, his second corp. came upon king Rameses and then was massacred by the heavy Hittite chariots. The Hittite chariots then descended on the camp and were overwhelmed. The Egyptian archers had one important technological advance: the Composite Bow. This weapon could place an arrow through a solid plate of bronze.2

The Hittite charioteers decided it would be a good idea to attack Rameses’ camp. Their attack turned into organized chaos. There was looting as well as fighting going on. See, Egyptian artifacts were the most prized things in the ancient Near East during that time. The Egyptian foot soldiers used tactics to dispense of their enemies. They would pull the Hittites from there chariots as they were looting the camp and slit their throats. With the aid of the Egyptian archers, they massacred the Hittite charioteers. The Hittites had some 40,000 infantry that never saw the battle. Rameses and the Hittite general fought two completely separate battles. Needless to say, the battle, in Rameses mind, was a victory. He never wanted his people to forget that so he painted it on his temple, The Ramesseim, at Thebes. What if he would have lost the battle or hi “Today there is fraternity between the Great King of Egypt and the king of Hatti, between Ra and Teshub.”s forces were totally annihilated? The new masters of the Sinai, The Hittites, might have removed the parts of the Bible dealing with Egypt, such as the Exodus. Furthermore, it most likely would not have been written for “us” [the Western World.] It might have very well been written in Hittite.

Nevertheless, the treaty was bred during a time of change in the region surrounding Kadesh. Egypt was taking on a huge slave population from its skirmishes with the “Sea Peoples,” the Haberu people were finding that they couldn’t live peacefully in their land anymore, and the Hittites were finding that they needed the cedar trees in the Sinai, as did the Egyptians, which probably brought about Kadesh. They, the Haberu, needed to seek refuge with a superpower in the area. Most of them chose Egypt.

The treaty also did something that, up until that time, was unseen. It provided terms for the extradition of prisoners:

“If a man or two men who are unknown flee, and if they come to Reamasesa, to serve him, then Reamasesa has to take hold of them and deliver them into the hands of Hattusili, king of the country of Hatti.”

“If a man or two men who are unknown flee, and if they escape from the country of Egypt and if they don’t want to serve him, then Hattusili, the great king, the king of the country of Hatti, has to deliver them into his brother’s hands and he shall not allow them to inhabit the country of Hatti.”

“If a man flees from the country of Hatti, or two people, and if they flee from the country of Hatti, and if they come to the country of Egypt, and if a nobleman flees from the country of Hatti or of a city and they flee from the country of Hatti to go to the country of Egypt, then Reamasesa has to order them to be taken to his brother. Look, the sons of the country of Hatti and the children of the country of Egypt are at peace.”

“If some people flee from the country of Egypt to go to the country of Hatti, then Hattusili, the great king, the king of the country of Hatti, has to order them to be taken to his brother. Look, Hattusili the great king, the king of the country of Hatti, and Reamasesa, the great king, the king of the country of Egypt, your brother, are at peace.”3

Furthermore, it established Geneva Convention-like terms concerning the treatment of fugitives who flee either country:

“If a man flees from the country of Hatti, or two men, or three men, and if they come to Reamasesa, the Great King, the king of the country of Egypt, his brother, then Reamasesa, the Great King, the king of the country of Egypt, has to take hold of them and to order them to be taken to Hattusili, his brother, since they are brothers. As for their crime, it should not be imputed; their language and their eyes are not to be pulled out; their ears and their feet are not to be cut off; their houses with their wives and their children are not to be destroyed. “

“If a (man flees from the country of Reamasesa, the Great King, king of the country of Egypt), or two men, or three men, and if they come (to Hattusili, the Great King), the king of the country of Hatti, my brother, then Hattusili, the Great King, king of the country of Hatti, my brother, has to take hold of them and to order them to be taken to Reamasesa, the Great King, the king of the country of Egypt, because Reamasesa, the Great King, king of the country of Egypt, and Hattusili are brothers. As for their crime, it should not be imputed; their language and their eyes are not to be pulled out; their ears and their feet are not to cut off; their houses with their wives and their children are not to be destroyed.”4

This treaty was truly revolutionary for its time. Not until the Geneva Convention itself would the world see a treaty like this. These two countries were the two heavy hitters of their time. However, how did the treaty affect Egypt?

Egypt, as a culture had moved away from posh tombs to a more secluded form of burial in the Valley of the Kings. She had forgotten where she came from, and was becoming a product of the world around her through trade with the Phoenicians. Egypt did not need to have a standing army. She, unlike her neighbors, was allowed to approach trade from a “let us benefit both our nations with trade” rather than “accept or we will kill you.” For thousands of years, Egypt need not worry about invasions from foreign peoples as desserts to the west and south, the Sinai to the East, and the Mediterranean Sea to the North naturally protected her. That is why, when the Hyksos invaded, Egypt was docile. Hitherto the Hyksos invasion, Egypt did not need a standing army. However, two conquering nations [the Hyksos and Hittites] had made her tough prompting Tutmosis III to draft Egypt’s first standing army. Her culture suffered as a result.

Of course, Rameses chose to depict, on the walls of his temple, a stunning victory over the Hittite empire, thus the Egyptian “part” of the treaty reflected that. The Hittite “part” of the treaty made no mention of any past aggression with the Egyptians. Both sides wanted to show that they were family. For example, in a part of the Egyptian text, it says: “But in the time of Mutwattalli, the great chief of Hatti, my brother, he fought side-by-side with [Ramesse-mi-Amun] great ruler of Egypt.”

Also, we must analyze the effect of the Haberu peoples on Egypt. What needs to be understood is that a group called the Hyksos invaded and conquered Egypt5. They were a Semitic group not unlike the Hebrew [Haberu] peoples. After the revolt, led by Kamos and Ahmose, the Hyksos and Hebrew peoples that had enjoyed relative security now found themselves under Egyptian rule. The Egyptians were taking back their country. They could not very well let them [the Semitic peoples] flee into the Sinai where they might rise to be a threat again.

One side sent the other a draft of their terms to read and ratify and vise-versa. It was also believed that one-thousand Hittite and Egyptian gods witnessed the treaties signing. These gods witnessed the signing to ensure the life and health of the treaty. Furthermore, it aided in allowing the peoples of both nations to believe in the treaty if their national gods approved. The gods approving assured national pride, even though both rulers claimed Kadesh as their victory.

Even though the battle was a military draw, what if one side would have won the battle? Believe that if the Hittites had won the battle, the Exodus story would have probably been deleted and the text would not have seen it Greek alliteration…it would still be in Hittite. Furthermore, I believe western thought would have changed had the battle gone the way of a Hittite victory. The Israelites would have been subject to the Hittite polytheistic traditions thus losing Judaism, Christians would have never came about as the climate would have not been right for its coming.

This treaty was different in many ways. Unlike today’s treaties, both sides did not have an advanced copy to read over and sign. One must remember that the battle supersedes the treaty in importance. This is because it ushers in the phase of independence for the region now known as Palestine. Nevertheless, this document provides a stunningly accurate look at “international” relations.

1 Decisive Battles- “Rameses II” Television Program. A&E Networks. October 15th, 2004

2 Decisive Battles- “Rameses II” Television Program. A&E Networks. October 15th, 2004

3 From: Tour Egypt.net http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/treaty.htm April 15, 2005

4 From Tour Egypt.net http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/treaty.htm April 15, 2005

5 Hyksos invaded and conquered Egypt in about 1680 B.C.E.