Talk:Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC)

message: I have two printed works that say 1479, but twice as many online references say 1469 (tho many are WP-derived), and there are a few websites that use both 1469 and 1479 on the same page(!). Which should it be? Stan 04:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the page to Battle of Megiddo (15th century BCE), a. to reflect the uncertainty as to the precise dating of the event (though noting that by far the best accepted date amongst Egyptologists is currently 1457 BCE); b. to remove the BC and make it BCE "before Christian era" - far more acceptable overall Pjamescowie 18:08, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: I've done my duty.  Finding this a stub, I researched what I had.  I found the German Wikipedia version pretty complete.  I merged that with what little this article started with, added bits from my sources.  Others can take it from here.  
This also covers the Siege of Megiddo, what little there is.  I don't think there will ever be enough for a separate article on that.  I will redirect Siege of Megiddo to here.
Chronologically, this is the first ancient battle article; only about 1500 more to go.  --A D Monroe III 22:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there Hittitie accounts of this battle?  Might you be confusing it with the Battle of Kadesh? PatGallacher (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unstubbed 

message: Dupuy's Evo says Egyptian scribes (under Thutmose III) were the first to do body counts after battles ended.  --Trekphiler 23:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptrivia 

message: I've reverted his edits as they were basically copyvios from http://touregypt.net/battleofmegiddo.htm and http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/megiddo.htm -- as are many of his edits on other articles.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed copyvio by Egyptos 

message: There appears to be some very dubious original research going on with this article.  This is the first I have heard of this, that Judges chapter 4 is a reference to the Battle of Megiddo fought by Thutmose III, and having a quick look over this chapter I see nothing which would support this view, or any mention of Egyptians.  Do we have clear Hittite references to this battle either? PatGallacher (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything by Rktect anywhere should be deleted, he is/was notorious for original research here and elsewhere. I thought most of his stuff had been cleaned up but this may have been missed. I've cleaned the Judges/Sisera stuff out, it was fairly recent, now it needs improving. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy problems

message: No consensus for move. Parsecboy (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Given the disputes which exist, I'm a bit cautious about any chronology claiming to give the exact year as far back as that.  Even more surprising is the claim to an exact date.  Is our knowledge of the ancient Egyptian calendar that precise that we can do this?  Also, with any date prior to (I think) 1st March 101 BC you have to say if this is the proleptic Gregorian calendar or the proleptic Julian calendar. PatGallacher (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any date prior to the invention of the Gregorian calendar may be presumed Julian (unless it deals with the unreformed Roman calendar, meaningless here). Inserting Julian is probably harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we presume that?  I am not disputing that normally applies to dates from when the Julian calendar was normally in use, but what about before then?  Proleptic Gregorian calendar says that this tends to be used for historic dates for cultures which did not use the Julian calendar.  At this time there would be an 11-day gap between the Julian and Gregorian dates, which in some places might be significant in terms of hours of daylight, weather etc., and the Gregorian date corresponds to the calendar we now use.  I don't think we can just let this stand without clarification from the relevant source. PatGallacher (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that, at least about the Mediterranean. Switching Greek or Egyptian history from Gregorian to Julian (as dates must be for Augustus's time) to Gregorian again makes no sense. It may be true (I do not know) for Mayan or Chinese dates, but not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That last comment strikes me as confused, and I am genuinely confused about what it means.  Actually, during Augustus's time Julian and Gregorian dates would be identical, what we are dealing with here is dates well before his time. PatGallacher (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, during Augustus's time Julian and Gregorian dates would be identical, No; they are identical during the third century. The Gregorian calendar lost one day at 300 AD, and has lost 3 days each 400 years since to the present difference of 13.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Date issues

message: Last night I saw the excellent PBS 3-hour series "Egypt's Golden Empire . New Kingdom"; it corresponds closely to what I read in the article. Kevin Langdon (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Useful Reference 

message: Last night I saw the excellent PBS 3-hour series "Egypt's Golden Empire . New Kingdom"; it corresponds closely to what I read in the article. Kevin Langdon (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Useful Reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050222115640/http://www.meritneith.de:80/thutmosis_militaer.htm to http://www.meritneith.de/thutmosis_militaer.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: one of the sources for the casualty count is John Keegan's A History of Warfare (called The History of Warfare in the citation list), however in Keegan's book during the discussion of the casualty count he states that "only eighty-three of the enemy had been killed in the battle and 340 taken prisoner" in reference to the casualties of the Canaanites(page 176). Keegan's source for this is the Cambridge Ancient History volume II part 1, pages 444-451, which also breaks down the casualties as eighty three killed, 340 captured. SovietMuffin01 (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to expand on this a little, the other source for the casualty count is The Battle of Megiddo by Harold Hayden Nelson which also lists 83 people, not 8,300 as the death toll. SovietMuffin01 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty count