Talk:Battle of Kadesh

message: The Commanders and leaders listed are quite specific, e.g. Piyama-Inarash lead forces from Wilusa. I think this requires a citation of a source since Wilusa is not even listed in the Appendix A - The Hittite Allies section later in the article. As another example, extant Hittite texts list Masturi as the king of the Seha River Land, but what source identify him as a commander at Kadesh? In short, the whole section is lacking in citations. 24.209.10.11 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Commanders and Leaders

message: Recent edits have added the names of some of the Hittite dead, as listed by the Egyptians afterwards.  I have been reverting these edits, but in fact I would love to see such a list.  But I would like (1) that it not be plagiarized from another source, and (2) that it come from a source a little more recent than 1892.  Name normalizations have changed a bit since then. Consider this a "call out" to some friendly Egyptologist out there to add this information. Publik (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Named Hittite Dead According to the Egyptians

message: Kadesh merely means a 'holy city' - there were many. This battle was NOT fought at the city stated in the article, as simple research will demonstrate. The geography is all wrong. It was fought at Carchemish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.140.130 (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 12.187.94.246 and similar IP's are socks of banned and blocked . See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rktect. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG CITY 

message: 1. Matsurama, Muwatalli's brother
2. Grabatusa,charioteer of Khitasir
3. Khirapusar, a royal secretary
4. Rabsuna, another general
5. Tarakennas, the commander of the cavalry
Egyptzo (talk)
:The principle objection to the inclusion of your statement is that it was lifted wholesale from another source.  Reword it, and cite your source.  There is a secondary objection that can be overlooked until a more current source can be used; your source is very, very old.  Our understanding of how to render names found in Egyptian sources has changed since the 19th century.  The inclusion of such a list would in fact be quite interesting, and a very valuable addition to this article. Publik (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killed and wounded in battle 

message: The constant reinsertion of "shortly afterwards" into the "Result" section is misleading, which is why it keeps getting removed.  The Hittite expansion as far south as to conquer Apa took place in the same campaign.  Please stop reinserting it, as it will continue to be removed. "Because my brother Muwattalli campaigned against the king of Egypt and the king of Amurru, when he defeated the kings of Egypt and Amurru, he went back to Aba.  When Muwattalli, my brother defeated Aba, he [. . .]ed and [went] back to Hatti, but [he left] me in Aba." KUB 21.17 i 14-21, trans. in Beal, Richard H., The Organization of the Hittite Military, Texte der Hethiter, Heft 20 (1992) p. 307  Publik (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Give it up on "shortly afterwards"

message: The location of the table listing the Hittite allies was moved from a footnote into the main body of the text.  There is nothing wrong with that, and in fact that is where I originally placed it.  However, I felt that a long table like that disrupted the flow of the article, so I gave a brief summary in the article body, and then moved the detailed list into a footnote.  I leave it to other editors to decide where it makes the most sense.  Again, I don't have any problem with it being in the main body, it just seemed to me to take up too much space there. I did take the correction of the spelling of Carchemish.  Thank you for that. Publik (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The desire to move the list out of the footnotes is a good idea.  I created an appendix for that purpose.  This leaves the article uncluttered, removes the table from the footnotes where it did look weird, and makes it clear what the reader is linking to, which the footnote reference did not do. Publik (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of table of Hittite allies 

message: Hi, Yuval.  Could you please explain your removal of the Qadesh image?  I couldn't ever make out any details in it, couldn't even tell if it was the right place, but am wondering what the problem was with it.  Copyright?  Thanks.  208.97.196.5 (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  I found your explanation under the Kadesh article. Publik (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Qadesh image 

message: Can all editors please use this page, the discussion page, to discuss your issues instead of constant reverting. I would like to remind everyone about the three revert rule. It is a policy of Wikipedia that you all seem to be flaunting. If you do not start discussing your issues, and continue to blindly revert, then I will have to hand out further blocks and fully-protect this page. Please discuss your issues here. Woody (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear!  I have noticed that Publik continually makes whatever edits he pleases, without even attempting to discuss them here.  I have raised specific issues with him in this Talk page on numerous occasions, and he totally refuses to discuss them at all.  Instead he simply deletes what he likes, reverts as he pleases, and doesn't feel remotely bound by Wikipedia editorial polices, or even common courtesy.  I have still not received any explanation for his repeated removal of certain edits I have made.  It's a contravention of Wikipedia editorial policies and process.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This is precisely why the methodology of reconstructing the battle has to be explained, since there are so many variations on who was there and what happened.  Since there's no independent evidence for the battle, reconstructions sometimes differ from each other significantly.  It should be explained to the reader why this is, and how the conclusion of the academic consensus is reached.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It wasn't 'addressed', it was simply dismissed.  The objection raised was that this statement supposedly implies the battle did not take place, but the accompanying text in my edit ensures the reader cannot reach that conclusion.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: No claim is made that this source does anything different than anyone else or 'map out some special formula'.  It's simply an example of how the battle is reconstructed with reasonable certainty by reconciling the conflicting accounts through harmonizing these contradictions.  What is your objection to explaining this methodology and giving examples?  It has been about three weeks since I made three posts here specifically requesting clarification from you on this issue, and only now have you even bothered to respond.  That is simply rude.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Super Knuckles.  I hope not to have caused you any offense through any of my above comments.  I'm sure you know my frustrations are not directed at you.  I fully understand the difficulty of putting something together, not expecting it to cause any sort of inquiry later, and then being left high and dry because you can't remember where you got it from!  It is an experience I am unfortunately familiar with.  I've come to rather like Google Books.  It's helped me track down a few old memories! Publik (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry Publik, no offense taken. As I hope that Egyptzo isn't offended by the reverts with did to his versions, we are only trying to imrpove the article (as he is) but some times not every one agrees and that's why I hope we can settle our differences here and work together, as some of us did when other user named Rktect kept adding wrong info to the article. Super Knuckles (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Given that some of the voters here have no relevant education in the matter under discussion (for example, I do not have any training in Egyptian or Hittite history), it is going to be necessary for you to explain the merits of your respective views, explaining the methodology used and citing relevant academic sources (currently I support the edit of SuperKnuckles on the basis of what Publik has said).  This is precisely why the article needs a section on methodology, because the reader has no clue as to why the History Channel version is any more or less accurate than what they read here.  Given that there is no independent evidence for the battle, all reconstructions use standard techniques of the historiographical method to arrive at a reasonable approximation of accuracy.  It would be helpful to identify what these are.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really would not want to rely on the Historynet article at all. I've got, but haven't read, "Considerations on the Battle of Ḳadesh" by Hans Goedicke The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 52, (Dec., 1966), pp. 71-80 which should help (and also something from the Journal of Near Eastern Studies on who the enemy king was). Ah, I also have "Kadesh Revisited: Reconstructing the Battle Between the Egyptians and the Hittites" by Antonio Santosuosso The Journal of Military History, Vol. 60, No. 3, (Jul., 1996), pp. 423-444.  I'm not happy with the hittites.info site also as a source also but maybe someone can convince me it's good. Anyway, I have these sources, might have or be able to get more, and if people want my help I'm happy to chip in (a short summary of the issues here or on my talk page might help). Taiwan boi suggested I drop by.Doug Weller (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do that, so we can end this stupid edit war, my sources are all drained (can't get from them nothing new), so your help in this would be really helpful, these summaries would clear things a lot, and we could decide debatable things like the timely arrival of the Ne'arin. Super Knuckles (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Super Knuckles, your objections sound fine to me (for what it's worth).  Dougweller, it's great to see you've been able to help out so much with this article, it has been wanting informed input from another editor.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit war 

message: This is disputed -- we know when in his reign, but: "2There is, however, disagreement on the year, 1300 or 1286 or 1275/1274 B.C., mainly because of different interpretations of the New Kingdom's chronology, which can vary by fourteen to twenty-six years." this related to 3 different chronologies for Tuthmosis's reign, Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 104 n. 23. Might be easiest just to drop the calendar year.  I've also added 'Qadesh' as that's used quite a bit also, and I had to use that spelling to look it up in one of my books.
I'm editing a copy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dougweller/Kadesh --Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of the battle 

message: Goedicke thinks they were Canaanites -- military colonists Egyptianized (they are portrayed as Egyptians, recall). On the other hand, I found this;Schulman, A. R. 1981. The /narn/ at Kadesh Once Again. JSSEA 11: 7-19 "Schulman argues that the /narn/ of Ramses were Egyptians, not foreigners, and deals with the various movements of the Egyptian army before the battle, military intelligence on the Hittite side, all information indicating that the /narn/ did not form a separate and independent column, but were the survivors of the divisions Amun and Pre. The foreign word is used by the scribe to demonstrate his familiarity with Asiatic military terms. (from the AEB)  We need to include both as suggestions as to who they were.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well throw this into the mix:  Kitchen follows Gardiner follows Eduard Meyer (All the way back to 1928) that the Ne'arin are those forces described in the Poem P63, "his Majesty had made the first battle-force out of all the leaders of his army, and they were upon the shore of the land of Amor".  Seems pretty straightforward to me.  Alas, pretty much everybody and their mother have had different opinions on who the Ne'arin were.  Publik (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearin 

message: The Dardanians are not identical to the Trojans, although they are from Wilusa, and the Hittites had a treaty with Wilusa. I know some sources say they are but they have a separate mention in Homer.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And commenting on someone who identified the Dardanians with the Trojans, Michael C Astour, in "Review: Some Recent Works on Ancient Syria and the Sea People" by Michael C. Astour Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 92, No. 3, (Jul. - Sep., 1972), pp. 447-459  wrote "Which is, incidentally, not so: the Iliad carefully distinguishes the Dardanians from the Trojans, not only in the list of Trojan allies (11:816-823) but also in the frequently repeated formula keklyte meu, Tr6es kai Dardanoi ed' epikuroi (e.g., III:456)."Doug Weller (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was my connection, from one of my sources.  However I'll take Astour any day of the week over the source I used.  Besides, going to those lines in the Iliad... seems pretty obvious.  Point happily conceded. Publik (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dardanians 

message: Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: Doug, Reviewing your version, here are some thoughts of mine:
Right off the bat, I'll have to say something that probably will be considered here completely in dispute.  Labeling this battle as a "pyrrhic victory" for Egypt seems a stretch, particulary when it also states that the campaign ends in an Egyptian retreat while the Hittites continued to campaign south.  In order to be defined as "pyrrhic", Rameses would have needed to retain the field.
An important note of mine got deleted from the last paragraph of the Background, about the antecedents of the battle.  It's currently footnote 10 in your version.  To that footnote should be added, "Although, per Murnane, William, The Road to Kadesh, this capture probably took place in the reign of Seti I." (Maybe replace "per" with "according to")
As a personal opinion, I feel that the "Documentation and disagreements" sections fits more naturally with the "Recording the Battle" section, along with the "Disputes over the outcome", but don't intend to sweat it.  (My reasoning is that discussing the documents seems a good place to discuss the perceived reliability of said documents.)
The first sentence in "Kadesh campaign" now overlaps the same information in the first sentence of "The contending forces"
It looks like you removed the reference to the Dardanians as Trojans down below, but it should also be removed in the "The Contending Forces" section.
Since they were already discussed above, in the "Battle" section, you could probably just mention that the "Ne'arin arrived from Amurru", or something like that.
I regret that the extended tables of Hittite allies and Hittite dead have been removed, and would be interested in knowing why (particulary since the link to Appendix A no longer works).  I'm not so much concerned about the Hittite slain, but feel the Hittite allies table provides the complete list in a convenient form.  The link to the Appendix should at least be removed.
The "Recording the Battle" section lists the Poem and the Bulletin as sources, but not the Pictorial Record, nor the papyrus, nor the greater information around the cuneiform sources.  That information exists in the first two paragraphs of the current "Recording the Battle" section.
Oh, and I much prefer the current "Further Reading" section.
Publik (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is lots of stuff to be put back, inlcuding the tables. They weren't deliberately removed, I simply restored an old version which didn't have them, and I did that because it was the easiest way to make sure there was no copyvio stuff (I hope) left. I'll try to take on board all your points above, at a quick glance I agree. And the article should have no definitive statement about it being a victory (of any kind) or a defeat, but present encyclopedically the various disputes/positions of scholars.Doug Weller (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha.  Cheers.  Publik (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have checked first, the tables are there.Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (I was commenting on your sandbox version.  Sorry if that caused any confusion.) 208.97.196.5 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The battle wasn't a victory for Egypt. It was a defeat strategically--that is the key. Ramesses II never repeated his father's success in capturing Kadesh and coouldn't advance into Hittite territory. I am certain Ramesses II wanted to capture Kadesh--if not he wouldn't have personally been present for the debacle that ensued. Ramesses II won his 'personal victory' on the field by holding his ground at Kadesh but he lost the war since he could not now capture Kadesh and the Re brigade was almost wiped out.  He had to retreat and regroup his forces while crushing revolts among Egypt's vassals. If ever there was a 'pyrrhic' victory for Ramesses, this would be it. But you have to give him credit, he did come back a few years later and capture Tunip and Dapur...for a brief while before losing them again. In the end, Ramesses II himself realised that it was better to make peace than war with the Hittites.  Leoboudv (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still unclear to my why the info box has this labeled as a Pyrrhic victory at all. This battle was more of a draw. Even if the end result is considered a tactical victory for Ramesses II, that doesn't seem to be enough for it to be a victory in the spirit of the term. Furthermore, even if arguendo a tactical victory is enough, the losses don't seem sufficient to justify the term pyrrhic victory. The level of losses would have to be extensive enough that "one more such victory would utterly undo him." I don't believe that is the case here. Therefore, even in a metaphorical sense the term Pyrrhic Victory should not apply. I do have a verifiable source for a tactical Egyptian victory for the info box. Any issue with it being added and the Pyrrhic part being eliminated? NastyBrutishAndTall (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Stuff

message: Should any of this be included?
Faulkner, Raymond O. 1958 The Battle of Kadesh. Mitteilungen des Deutschen
ArchŠologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 16: 93-111.
Gardiner, Alan 1960 The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II. Oxford
Murnane, William J. 1985 The Road to Kadesh: A Historical Interpretation of
the Battle Reliefs of King Sety I at Karnak.  SAOC, 42.  Chicago: Oriental
Institute.
Rev. Alan R. Schulman, JNES 48 (1989) 48-50.
Goedicke, Hans 1989 The Battle of Kadesh: A reassessment. In Perspectives
of the Battle of Kadesh.  Leiden
"A synopsis of the article in AEB 1985"
BREASTED J.H., The Battle of Kadesh, a Study in the Earliest Known Military
Strategy, Chicago 1903 University of Chicago's Decennial Publications.
KUENTZ Ch., La Bataille de Kadech, "MIFAO" 55 (1928).
BREASTED J.H., The Battle of Kadesh, Chicago 1933.
GARDINER A.H., Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford 1966, p.189-95, 259-263.
HARTMAN Thomas Charles, The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II: An Analysis
of the Verbal Patterns of a Ramesside Royal Inscription, A Dissertation
Abstracts, Ann Arbor, Michigan 28, Number 10 (1968), 4150. Cf.: AEB68264.
WAY T. von der, Die Textuberlieferung Ramses'II. Zur Qades-Schlacht,
Hildesheim 1984.
OCKINGA B., On the interpretation of the Kadesh record, "CdE" 62 (1987),
p.38-48.
BRUNNER Hellmut, Hierogliphische Chrestomathie, Wiesbaden 1992, Tafel 20
(text from the temple of Abu Simbel)
KITCHEN K.A., Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated & Annotated. Translations,
Volume II: Ramesses II, Royal
Inscriptions, Oxford - Cambridge Mass. 1996 Blackwell Publishers.
STURM Josef, La guerre de Ramses II contre les Hittites. Traduction
francaise de Claude Vandersleyen et texte allemand
original. Der Hettiterkrieg Ramses" II., Bruxelles 1996.
Sorry, forgot to sign the above. Doug Weller (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More further reading 

message: Well, I don't know what you think but I don't think this sentence is correct: "A History Channel documentary "Ancient Discoveries: Egyptian Warfare" suggests Egyptian arms had stagnated and were ill prepared for encounters with the more modern and larger forces they'd come to encounter in the borderlands." I watched the documentary and I think that it meant that the Egyptians were ill equipped before the arrival of the Hyksos, before the new technologies brought by them were adopted by the Egyptians. So what you think? Should we change it? Super Knuckles (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen the documentary, but your understanding is correct. (Also, throughout all of the ancient Near East - including Hatti - the light, horse-drawn two man chariot precedes the development of the Hittite three man chariot, which makes its first appearance here at Kadesh.  And it is clear that at Kadesh not all of the Hittite chariots were three man chariots.) Publik (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: So we should change it, don't you agree? Super Knuckles (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Publik (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History CHannel documentary 

message: Are there any objections to moving this page to the Battle of Qadesh - a more up-to-date spelling? IansAwesomePizza (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Most people will look for this information under the name "Battle of Kadesh". very few people will try and find it under its triliteral root Qdsh. If it works don't fix it Rktect (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose naming the page "Battle of Qadesh" 

message: "Ancient Discoveries: Egyptian Warfare". Is used over 7 times as a reference yet this is what that link brings up a tv schedule. I cannot verify the text, what is it doing here? Are there no books? I think this reference will fail verification if put through the process. --41.177.4.50 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video are are not valid references 

message: contains an error: "Ramses leads his chariots to assault the Egyptian camp" I probably don't need to explain what's wrong with this, amusing as it is. It clearly should say "assist the Egyptian camp" or "assault the Hittites" (as the  seems to). I'd fix it myself but I don't know how to update files. 71.237.208.76 (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that also, I will send the dude that designed it a message. No one can change it since it is an image (i mean without using Photoshop).--41.177.4.50 (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in battle image caption 

message: It seems Ancient Egyptians used chariot runners (foot soldiers to run along side the chariot) as part of their use of chariots in warfare. Should that be included in the article? Should it also change the number of men Egyptians had in the battle? For 2000 chariots it would be 2000 chariot runners. Super Knuckles (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I have read in one of Osprey Publishing's books, chariot runners were supposed to captured and man abandoned enemy and friendly chariots. However, it didn't specify they ran alongside the chariots (Egyptian chariots were known for being even faster than other empires' designs), and it didn't necessitate the number of chariot runner to have standard relevance to the size of the friendly chariot force.  ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  14:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chariot runners? 

message: How did this error get through editing?   The sidebox says the date of the battle was 1274 BCE but the article says both that its date was 2014 BCE, and that it happened AFTER Hyksos expulsion, which radiocarbon dating places near the destruction of Thera in 1628 BCE.  So the battle CANNOT have taken place in 2014.  Was somebody doing a global replace and failed to edit later? 
71.163.117.143 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Temp vandalism or gross mistake by one-time editor -- quickly fixed.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  terrible discrepancy 

message: Ancient Discoveries: Egyptian Warfare ref, this ref is a little problem. It is a video. Now I have advocated that we should use video as ref from time to time, but I met with some objections. Can anyone elaborate on its usage here. ?--Inayity (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Discoveries: Egyptian Warfare as a ref 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Kadesh. 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/20131014163832/http://www.hittites.info/history.aspx?text=history%2fMiddle+Late+Empire.htm to http://www.hittites.info/history.aspx?text=history%2fMiddle+Late+Empire.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304003519/http://www.history.com/schedule.do?action=daily&linkDate=2008-05-141100&timeZone=EST to http://www.history.com/schedule.do?action=daily&linkDate=2008-05-141100&timeZone=EST#
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014163832/http://www.hittites.info/history.aspx?text=history%2fMiddle+Late+Empire.htm to http://www.hittites.info/history.aspx?text=history%2fMiddle+Late+Empire.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) 17:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Kadesh. 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/20080416015854/http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=211104 to http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=211104
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Kadesh. 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/20070927215715/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3459391.html?page=1&c=y to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3459391.html?page=1&c=y
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Used as a ref for the date in our lede. Found references to "BAR iii" in several online texts, but can't seem to track what/who this refers to. Anyone? - Snori (talk) 08:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference to Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. III I guess. That volume indeed encompasses the 19th Dynasty during which the battle took place. Khruner (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank! - Snori (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is "BAR III"

message: So ends the lede. But is this true? Likely the most well-documented battle before classical antiquity, true, but can these records really be held up to the grand historians of later Greek & Roman battles (for which the sources are generally more numerous and more detailed)? This "best documented" phrase is used for the same Battle on other pages but as far as I can tell all mentions originate with the same Ockinga fellow, who may have intended his remark for the Bronze Age specifically, seeing as how all of his work deals with Ancient Egypt. Samuel Enderby (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just came across this. One source is a bit thin for making a claim this bold in Wikipedia's voice. Given the age of the source I dont think it's even worth attributing to Ockinga; I think it should just be removed. 72.213.11.193 (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it. I could see a case being made for Kadesh even against the well-known battles of the Iron Age; those battles often aren't as well documented as we might imagine, and I don't know if any of them have as many sources as close to the event as Kadesh does. But I don't have access to Ockinga's paper and don't know if he makes that case, and you're certainly right that it's too strong a claim to state without qualification in Wikipedia's voice. A. Parrot (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Best Documented Battle in all of Ancient History"