@xxxMazooxxx Skin color has little to do with classifying a population of people, anyone with basic knowledge in anthropology knows that skin color depends on distance from the equator. Your the one that's simple, you still adhere to classifications invented by scientific racism! Nigeria has a long history of immigration from North Africa and the Middle East during Islamic Expansion. The ancient Egyptian upper class were no darker in skin color than Middle Eastern people that's their origins!
@xxxMazooxxx The ancient Egyptians only rarely depicted themselves as black, but mostly a red or reddish brown color. You're not fooling anyone with your black muslim propaganda wet dreams! So go shovel this garbage into the minds of your inner city youth and hope it makes them productive members of society and keep them out of prison, for we all know it has truly worked wonders already! And if you don't realize already that your black Egypt is nothing but a fantasy youre high on your own ass
@rainingburntice Maybe your simple mind cannot comprehend, either due to lack of education or maybe quite simply because your young. But either way have no worries I shall educate you. Nigerians are not as dark skinned as Nubians but Nigerians are black. Many African Americans are not as dark skinned as Nubians, but they are still black. If your argument is that because Ancient Egyptians were a lighter color than Nubians, then that means they weren't black? Then you fail ^_^
@xxxMazooxxx The ancient Egyptians were predominantly of Middle Eastern Caucasian descent. Black Africans in ancient Egypt before the Nubian Dynasty were only 20% of the population at the most! You're the simpleton if you think blacks were in the majority! The Hittites were predominently of Middle Eastern Caucasian descent as well but White Caucasians were about 35% of the population! It seems that there wasn't much at all if any Black History taking place at Kadesh! That's some reality for you!
@rainingburntice Link your sources of Great history expert LOL. You are a moron and an “internet scholar” ^_^. Ancient Egyptians have always depicted themselves as black. They are far too dark to be Asian or Caucasian. But then again that’s probably not what the yahoo answers page you read said LMAO
@blackdreamhunk2 Do you have any idea what you're talking about? You said, "black people were in those lands long before any white people proof!" There is absolutely nothing in these videos that even remotely suggests that! The narrator described the pharaoh as "Rameses might have had red hair?" And the Hittites were described as "having long flowing hair." It even shows a statue of Rameses with a prominent nose. Your engulfed in your own fantasies of a black Middle East!
@rainingburntice face it, the earliest known native species that lived in middle east were dinosaur/raptile/giant insect in 143 million years ago(middle east was form at the time). neither white or black were exist and they are consider to be outsider.
@xxxMazooxxx How stupid are you, READ my comments, Ancient Egyptians have the same skin shade as modern Egyptians do today. Nubians (e.g modern Sudan) had dark skin, and the Ancient Egyptians hated them
@TalonMercenary Wrong look at the color they used for themselves It was a reddish brown color. Not light brown, not tan. No Arabs are reddish brown unless they are of African descent. Arabs are same color as western Asians like Syrians and the Egyptians hated them. You lose ^_^
@xxxMazooxxx "used for themselves". What? Nobody chooses what colour they are born with. Ancient Egyptians were tan, deal with it. The only "black history" in Ancient Egypt were their Nubian slaves. Stop being a troll
@TalonMercenary I see the truth hurts your feelings. Sorry but black is black. You need to look at some hieroglyphics. They were not tan. Black Power!!! I love being just like my Ancient Egyptian brothers. ^_^
at the end it makes it seem as if this had been a total victory for Ramesses II which was not and from an operational point of view one could even say it was a defeat
Holy Bible is the best source for historical evidence...the British and the collective West are abandoning the very things made them successful...just wait and see, you people will soon be overwhelmed by the Chinese and Sub-Saharan Africans, whom are turning to Christianity!
@KnightsHospitallerBC The Bible is only of limited historical use. What made us successful was oppression and hegemony at the expense of human rights and equality and the Chinese are not turning to Christianity. As for the Africans, frankly after all their people have been through in the last few centuries I think they deserve some prosperity at last.
Disappointing that the two biggest empires bragging of their greatness only had one battle using only about 10% of their armies and then cowed down to 90 year boring peace.
academia only tells you what they want you to know,but if you go looking for self then you will find the truth my friend,for the truth will set your mind free.
technically, the pharaoh Ramses didn't achieve his goal... as he didn't manage to recapture Kadesh. some people may say he won a battle and lost the war. but I think he might have been way smarter :P
at that time, moving an army of 20,000 so far away from home, would be a logistic nightmare! egyptian soldiers must have been exhausted and ravaged by hunger... yet, Ramses transmitted a clear message to the hitties: "stay away from egyptian borders!" and the hittites never bothered him again...
The Pharao of the exodus was not Ramses, it was one called Merenptah. but the exodus itself didnt really happen in the same way written in the bible, it was much less dramatic I should say. one thing is a fact though, before the Jews left Egypt they stole all the gold they can find from Us Egyptians, and they used that gold to make the golden Calf when they were lost in the Sinai.
@kimokamal5 in fact, not even Merenptah mentioned in his stelle the israelites... he mentioned a small nomadic people that was entirely dispersed by his army, that's all. but the all of the cities in that land was ruled by canaanite lords... not israetites! the egyptians were well organized and kept exact records about that campaign. we know the name of the canaanite lords ruling the land and even the amount of gold, silver and other things they offered to Merenptah to spare them... ;)
@bogdancomm thank u for the reply. the only way that those people (israelites, canaanite or whatever u wanna call them) were represented in egyptian carvings was an old man holding a walking stick in his hand (which is very funny but also true) and the egyptains called them Hapiro and Hebrew comes from that word and it means Wanderers or Passer by........
He exposed a little truth in almost saying, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A BIBLE...YADAYADA, THERE LIES THE TRUTH OF THE AFRICAN ORIGINS OF MODERN MYTHOLOGY AND SPIRITUALLY. RELIGION IS FOR SEMITES AND INDO-EFFEMINATE ONES!
The Hittite version of this battle has THEM winning it....
Rather than a victory, Kadesh was a 'push.' The main forces never fought. Both opponents were so shaken by the results of this meeting engagement that they both called a truce.
@raaspider Alexander the Great had all of his men shave their beards, so that the enemy wouldn't pull on them if the hand to hand fighting became nasty.
Shaving his men permitted instant recognition of friend/or foe. In a world of non-uniform clothing/dress this was the single best way to ID his crew.
Grabbing a beard is useless: with one hand on a shield - at all times - and the other holding a blade - at all times - where do you get your third hand?
@staydput When you're in a huge brawl, eventually you're going to lose your shield or your sword. You're not always going to keep it. Then you have to resort to anything you can to hurt and kill the guy trying to kill you, If he has a beard, guess what? Easy pickings. A lot of Macedonians wore beards... it was a tradition.
@Alexandros1294 i don't think having a long hair or a long beard is a disadvantage in these kinds of battles. if your opponent is foolish enough to occupy one of his hands when he could thrust his sword in your belly, then you have the advantage. you can thrust your sword in his belly while he is too busy b itch fighting.
@TheScienceofnature alot of people had very long hair at the time. in a fight it would be swinging around with its length and it would be easy to grab and off balance your opponent. that could decide the fight.
Yet the Bogus Jews want us to think they have something to do with the Area called Palestine. Hear what the man said the Bible would not have been written in Egyptian, but Hittite's.
way too geared towards Egypt, you need to read the hittie battle report.
The hittie's knew where all the Egypt army was as they had spies all over the place, the egyptain army was days apart and half was left on the other side of a river.
the old biblical stories have a lot of truth in them, just not in the way it was written down. Christians back then (and now) tend to twist the truth to their concenience. for instance, mozes walking through the sea probably happened, just not in the bullshit way the bible says. He went to a fordable place and crossed
i loled so me some proof that its not the same also theirs to parts of the bible old testmant dealt with the jews and the new testament for christain yet both support each other. more so for christains, so i dont get your bullshit that you writing. and by the way the bible was writing first in hebrew than in greek and later latin and other Langauges also diffrant form you got new king james and new international bible read them both and come back to me. you need to do more research.
Ok, I don't get it? Why was ramsey praised when he didn't even capture kadesh?? It just went back to the status quo and the battle was fought for nothing other than a peace treaty. No wonder Egypt got easily owned by the greeks when they came knocking.
He was praised for the fact he manged to survive and manged to save much of his army with the fact his army was strung out over long distance and he was being surprised attacked.
As for the greeks wining Egypt was slightly off, Egypt was already capitulated by the persian empire before hand, it just when alexander come they simply surrendered as they do not like the persian rulers
I think it's more to do with the fact that his power over the Egpytians gave him strong influence over them. He used propaganda and twisted the story of The Battle of Qadesh. He made out that the Hitites were slaughtered and the Egyptians won a massive victory.
the amount of arrows used had the effect of a machine gun!! same as in US civil war, when thousands of musket rounds, fired at once, forced troops on either side to use trench warfare to survive the massive rate of fire!
Ramses was very lucky! Hittites were tough northern dudes used to rough conditions and a more warrior based society. meaning even Hittite peasents were probably armed are very independant minded. much like Highland Scots!
Strange opinion. King Solomon actually existed (regardless of biblical myths). These myths always based on any real events! If not existed Solomon, then why did existed (for example) Hammurabi? IMHO, even Joseph or Moses could really exist. And at last; Im atheist.
Okay, King Solomon existed the way King Arthur existed. In other words, he was probably a number of different kings or leaders combined into a myth. Historical? No, there is absolutely no archealogical evidence to support him or Moses. We know Ramses existed, because of all of the historic and archealogical evidence. If his exist, why not Solomon or Moses? I am not an atheist, but I know the difference between allegorical tales and facts.
Maybe you're right. I am not a specialist on Ancient Middle East or archaeology. I just read many historical books, (some written in USSR). Their authors hypercritical to the Bible, but never doubted Jewish kings and even called the exact dates of their rule. Why shouldn't I believe I. M. Diakonov (the largest specialist to Ancient East in Russia)?
"is absolutely no archealogical evidence to support him" - But exist archaeological evidence of the Jewish Kingdom (since 10 cent. bc - or even before). If we do not know the names of real rulers, then why not Saul, David or Solomon? These names are preserved in the legends, was written in the Bible. This cannot be randomness. So, I respect your opinion, but but remain with my.
The Shishaq of the Bible has generally been associated with Shoshenq I of Egypt. fragment of a stele bearing Shoshenq I's name has been found at Megiddo which affirms this king's claim, in several Karnak temple walls, that he invaded the land of Israel and conquered 170 towns there.
@Furtherdefinitions their are facts the jewish people who writing what they say in the old testament from god, god back then wasnt nice he was harsh because of sin.He names the princess who adopted Moses as Merris, wife of Pharaoh Chenephres. also Moses figures in several of Jesus' messages maybe jesus was a magician or maybe just maybe the son of God which you dont deny that jesus is really because their is alot more proof that he is what he said he was he dead and rose again.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The reconstruction of this battle is soly base on Zegyptian sources. Three excavated peace treaties found in Turkey, in the formar Hittite capital, tells a very different story on the outcome of this battle. According to this treaty, the Egyptians lost the battle...
So there you go.. no source checking before making this decumentary, given the fact that the plackes were found in 1906.
The outcome of this battle is actually open to interpretation. The Egyptians beat the Hittites in the open field but they failed to accomplish their main objective: capturing the city of Kadesh. This is an example of winning the battle but losing the war.
The Hittites could've also surrounded Ramses and killed or captured him. However, the Hittites didn't need to do so because their objective was to keep the city secure, which they accomplished. Naturally, both sides can claim victory.
@sourrooster: Ramses only achieved a tactical retreat, while the Hittites achieved an operational victory and strategic victory. Not to mention the fact that the Hittites gave 10,000 egyptian infantry and 2,000 chariots a good run for their money while only having to use 3,700 of their chariots and none of their infantry. If anything this should have been a decisive victory as the Egyptian army was more well trained than the Hittite army and their levy system.
it is obvious that hittite was just try to defend its allies, if they charge further deep into south they could easily crush rameses like little bug. but they were back to the place rather than conquer large chunk of territory that is far away from home.
they fought for justice. romeses is like anceint version of saddam hussein.
In other words they were pussys!! they had a larger army but still afraid to fight rameses who was so far away from Egypt... no wonder the Hetites are extinct while Egypt is still there.
there was point to attack further into egyptian territory, beside hittite did accomplish their goal, defend city state of kadesh from reign of terror of rameses. and you must understand they were totally different type of empire. egypt was territorial empire at the time so they would want to expend as far as possible. but hittite in the other hand more like british empire that regarding on trade/economic purpose more that territory quest. and egyptian were tried to violating their benefit.
if ptolemaic can be counted, then i can say lydia is hittite's successor state since lydian were also claim them selves as king of hittites. and pontus also claim they have heritage with hittite too. even persian emperor darius the first stated him self as both pharaoh and master of hittite. title doesnt mean anything.
true egyptian empire was collapse after the death of rameses. the later dynasties do not consider having any connection with these royal house hold in the past.
we are talking about the political heritage and you are talk about cultural influence??? of cause ptolemaic may successes the legacy of egyptian religion and culture but the governing institution and government system were totally macedonian style. as a regime egypt was much dead already under ptolemaic era.
and during the reign of rameses 3rd the empire was already broke apart and he spend most of his life tried to put all pieces back together. he never accomplish due to assassination.
i read exodus and bible and it tells me ramese is evil. slave master and arrogant idiot.
at least alexender was not as bad as he was.
PS: according to exodus egyptian power collapsed soon after mose flee egypt. and hittite stood still for another 50 years after rameses deceased. egypt collapsed in 1200bc and hittite was 1170s bc
all my resource were based on research from stanford university and british broadcast center(bbc), discovery network and history chanel. i am rather believe western media are more neutral standard than old guy.
stanford research team had dated the collapse of egyptian new kingdom arround 1200 bc soon after the death of ramses . and ramses was in the reign during the exodus period.
and egyptian did not call their monarch "pharaoh" until 26th dynasty.
and ramses 3rd in 20th dynasty do not consider in new kingdom era.
some wikipedia source had mess up. i fought those hot head middle easter throught wiki-editing war so i am clearly understand your source was simply from these idiot
Man... everytime i want to have a good laugh i read your comments..with all due respect to America it's a new country of only 500 years civilization not counting the native American civilization which has nothing to do with you.You slaughtered them & took their land then you say Ramesis was a war criminal!! What about the black slaves you kidnapped & brought from Africa to do your dirty work for you?Where do you get off trashing other people when you yourselves did crimes against humanity!!!
we dont KIDNAPPING african black, we bought them with cash...real cash!! at least we dont act like mafia like mexican or spanish/italian do. and azetic was declined nearly 2 centuries before british arrive in boston in late 17th century. wtf is that to do with us? against humanity? where the fuck did you get this idea? at least we don't invade other innocent nation like you do.
again..stop bash me with your hot head and stupidity.
again...wtf is slavery to do with trash other people's culture? you are actually getting more hot head than i was expecting. and natives declination was cause by us? go back to high school and fix your american history because i believe you never graduate from high school.
It's quite obvious you're the illiterate here because aztecs were in mexico & the british first settled in virginia. u claim that it was ok to enslave black africans who suffered for centuries at white owners hands just because they were bought for cash!!! so u encourage the slave trade then... & what does saddam or bush or any of the bullshit uv been feeding us for so long hv 2 do with kadesh ur just a dumbass racist asshole who doesn't even speak English so do us all a favour & fuck off...
saddam was found guilty when he invaded kuwait. later then he hold MDW and ignore the order from un security council. and yeah he did act like rameses....arrogant and idiot.
again...improve your spelling/grammar before you start vomiting something you ate from last day. cause it makes people wanna throw away in the controversy.
I won't even comment about ur English.... it speaks for itself!! How can u be an american & have no clue about ur country's language didn't they teach u the language at the redneck school u obviously went to in n carolina?? As for everything else u wrote well i can tell that u suck a lot of redneck dick that u don't know what ur talkin about anymore......& as usual fuck off.....
first before u start wash my face with ur argument there is few things u must know: 1st azetic was destroyed by spanish. 2nd we aint racist, it was true that we were enslave people but we did not capture&sell them for benefit. we are just consumer. 3rd most of slavery dealer were either pirate or spanish cargos. they were the true slavery dealer.
and yeah kadesh was the war of evil that hittite and its allies against the invasion from evil egyptian.
now i can believe that you are reside in garbage can all these year. and reviewing how many cockroach hid inside the garbage bag and kitchen remain. yeah.....it IS GREAT!
hittits wear a impire that lived in present day Turkey. Arculoligest found a hidden Hitite texts which states that they has a civil war shortly after Kadesh in which joew all ready stated. In the bibal, there are 4 kingdoms that have the power to call each other "great kings" and theae powers are egypt, assyria, Babylon, and the other unknown. In the treaty after the battle of Kadesh, Ramese referes to a unknown ruler named "great king" making him a super power. It was the Hittites. This random
The Egyptians were still the rulers of lower Canaan and enslaved many thousands of Canaanites and Hebrews for building projects under Ramesses II, perhaps the greatest Pharaoh of Egyptian history.
No matter what is said at the end of the day an Egyptian army only half the size of the Hetites massive force & in fact with only a quarter of his army, Ramses stopped the Hetites and forced them to retreat. So what happened to the superior Hetite chariots and proffesional soldiers? The battle was a draw but in fact it was a victory for Egypt.
Still is??!! The guy's been dead for about 3000 years so why do you have a grudge against him? And for the record all the rulers at the time were like Saddam Heussein because they were kings & even considered Gods by their people... so what's your point??!! It's obvious you just want to trash Egypt without any purpose, oh & please learn English before you decide to mutalate the language with your horrible grammer.
trash egyptian? there is one thing I dont get from you middle easter. worship a dictator is a threat to the freedom. and basically I was telling the truth that a dictator can lie his/her past. you just got mad because your history was nothing but darkness.
and what is wrong with my grammar? and look at you. you couldnt even spell it right.
First of all i'm not going to discuss your English language because you can't even complete a sentence without making a dozen mistakes. Second Egypt's history was the cradle of civilization for the world everything the pharroes left behind is proof enough. Finally Saddam was a mass murderer who deserved what he got & by the way wasn't Egyptian so why are you always bringing him up?! Where are you from?? Maybe you can enlighten us about your country's great civilization...
here we go....if you can reply ppl in one minute without making mistake. i would admit it i have terrible skill in typing. but before this arguing ever start i must mention this: you aint that good either. atleast i'm faster than you.
and about the egyptian history. i can feel that you aint different from these chinese nationalist i just fought in eastern history forum. you are just being....hot head!
at least i being standard in viewing history and not been hot head like you guys
and yeah from exodus and early old testment. ramese was described as tyrannic ruler whom enslave the canaanite and hebrew captive. and also in these source it tells that rameses DID massive massacre the resistance in canaan. if he's not as bad as saddam then stalin and hitler may have ascend into haven. cause cause they dont cut ppl's head and right hand like he did.
Ok now your English is getting very funny you really suck at it...... "at least i being standard in viewing history and not been hot head like you guys" those were your words & you say i'm bad at English!!!!! & why are you afraid to say where you're from?? you're not making any sense.... what does communist or chinese nationalists have to do with saddam, hitler or stalin these are three different systems of government you're just typing words without knowing what the hell you're talking about!!
well. before you start bash me with these argument consider you are just a clown. believe me you never take english of art...
i'm from north carolina and as a student i believe in western researches than you. in many case politics can heavily influence the history recording and even rewrite the history itself. so technically rameses's lagacy was no different than stalin's "NO GREAT PURGE" theory(stalin claimed there was no great purge in his reign.)
The Holy Bible is a religous text and cannot be taken wholly as historical evidence. If the story of the Exodus is true, which although debatable is plausable to an extent, the name of the Pharaoh is not mentioned and most academics agree it is unlikely to be Ramses.
Also the Old Testiment is the Jewish Bible therefore Exodus is a Jewish story. The Jewish authors could hardly be considered neutral when discusing Pharaoh and therefore their accounts cannot be taken as absolute truth
The Bible is of the highest quality archeological evidence (best preserved text in world history... by FAR) and should be taken very seriously. Although archeology will never be able to give a complete picture of the past, it always confirmed the claims of the Bible, giving further evidence of the Bible's "scientific authority". Archeology may not be able to find and reconstruct all of the Bible's stories, but not finding evidence is not evidence in itself to claim that the Bible is unreliable.
@ashleyjhannay ------The Holy Bible has NEVER....I repeat NEVER been proven false concerning historical data. Matter of fact it is the #1 recourse used for archeological work in that region. Furthermore every time the so called educated folk have tried to point out why the Bible is wrong, eventually it is proven accurate.
@rfurco8 Could you prove the exodus? We have the list of egyptian pharaohs and none of them mention the israelites before ~800 BC. We have plenty of egyptian, babilonian or assyrian texts and none of them mention something like a slave mass migration. The kings of all those people used to record every detail of their reign... The good ones for themselves and the bad ones for their rivals. But none of the egyptians' rivals mentioned the israelites... just because they didn't exist at that time!
@rfurco8 dude, I'm a christian... but I'm not stupid. I do believe in God and Jesus is my mentor... but I repeat: I'm not stupid. there's not even the slightest evidence of such a mass migration as described in the book of exodus... then it probably never happened. let me tell you what I think: the jewish history is a fake story... forged outside the real world's frame. this won't stop me trusting Moses though. Jesus told me to trust the words of Moses... but not his story. get the difference?
@bogdancomm of course, they won't record a massive slave migration of israelites. What pharaoh, who takes great pride in treating himself as a god, would record a mass migration of the basic economy of egypt? Why would he record something that makes him look weak. That's not how history works. The Bible has never been proven wrong on even the slightest of matters. "Matter of fact it is the #1 recourse used for archeological work in that region" - (rfurco8) Humans are sinful and make mistakes.
@rs2fifa10 we have a lot records about Egypt from their babylonian neighbours... especially when it comes about egiptian failures ;)
not a single babylonian record mentions the israelites; NOT A SINGLE ONE! instead they mention a lot of canaanite land lords paying tribute either to Egipt or to Babylon. no sign of israel before ~800 BC... NOT A SINGLE ONE!
I'm a christian, but I'm not stupid... what's next: the dinosaurs didn't exist because they're not mentioned in The Bible??? come on...
@rs2fifa10 excuse me but the Egyptians kept records of everything specially property and slaves were precisely that so it is impossible (of course you can believe what you choose to) that there would have been an exodus so large and not have been recorded in any Egyptian official record.
@rs2fifa10 Israelite slaves were actually a rarity in Egypt. The pharaoh usually levied lower class Egyptians to do this work. He did this because native Egyptians saw their work as sacred and good, while the Israelites were obviously not very enthusiastic. The tribes of Israel would not have presented a very large workforce anyway. They were only one tribal grouping among many in the Levant at the time.
what on earth are you people arguing about ? Cant you just enjoy in the first great battle in human history...
matmanxify 1 day ago
@xxxMazooxxx Skin color has little to do with classifying a population of people, anyone with basic knowledge in anthropology knows that skin color depends on distance from the equator. Your the one that's simple, you still adhere to classifications invented by scientific racism! Nigeria has a long history of immigration from North Africa and the Middle East during Islamic Expansion. The ancient Egyptian upper class were no darker in skin color than Middle Eastern people that's their origins!
rainingburntice 4 days ago
96 sons! 200 wives! Good god. Did he just got tire of his wives killed them and replace them or did he had 200 wives all ar once.
MsThemuh 1 week ago
@xxxMazooxxx The ancient Egyptians only rarely depicted themselves as black, but mostly a red or reddish brown color. You're not fooling anyone with your black muslim propaganda wet dreams! So go shovel this garbage into the minds of your inner city youth and hope it makes them productive members of society and keep them out of prison, for we all know it has truly worked wonders already! And if you don't realize already that your black Egypt is nothing but a fantasy youre high on your own ass
rainingburntice 1 week ago
@rainingburntice Maybe your simple mind cannot comprehend, either due to lack of education or maybe quite simply because your young. But either way have no worries I shall educate you. Nigerians are not as dark skinned as Nubians but Nigerians are black. Many African Americans are not as dark skinned as Nubians, but they are still black. If your argument is that because Ancient Egyptians were a lighter color than Nubians, then that means they weren't black? Then you fail ^_^
xxxMazooxxx 1 week ago
Awwwwee come on!! a peace treaty!! really?! come on i want utter destruction!!!
PhalangitePower 2 weeks ago
@xxxMazooxxx The ancient Egyptians were predominantly of Middle Eastern Caucasian descent. Black Africans in ancient Egypt before the Nubian Dynasty were only 20% of the population at the most! You're the simpleton if you think blacks were in the majority! The Hittites were predominently of Middle Eastern Caucasian descent as well but White Caucasians were about 35% of the population! It seems that there wasn't much at all if any Black History taking place at Kadesh! That's some reality for you!
rainingburntice 2 weeks ago
@rainingburntice Link your sources of Great history expert LOL. You are a moron and an “internet scholar” ^_^. Ancient Egyptians have always depicted themselves as black. They are far too dark to be Asian or Caucasian. But then again that’s probably not what the yahoo answers page you read said LMAO
xxxMazooxxx 1 week ago
@hanrinch Were talking about people, genius! Can you read?!
rainingburntice 3 weeks ago
@xxxMazooxxx What does this have to do with Black History?
rainingburntice 4 weeks ago
@rainingburntice Rather simple, history about Blacks ^_^. You must be rather simple as well if you can't see that ;)
xxxMazooxxx 2 weeks ago
@blackdreamhunk2 Do you have any idea what you're talking about? You said, "black people were in those lands long before any white people proof!" There is absolutely nothing in these videos that even remotely suggests that! The narrator described the pharaoh as "Rameses might have had red hair?" And the Hittites were described as "having long flowing hair." It even shows a statue of Rameses with a prominent nose. Your engulfed in your own fantasies of a black Middle East!
rainingburntice 4 weeks ago
@rainingburntice face it, the earliest known native species that lived in middle east were dinosaur/raptile/giant insect in 143 million years ago(middle east was form at the time). neither white or black were exist and they are consider to be outsider.
such debate are truly worthless.....
hanrinch 3 weeks ago
Ramses II was good,but not like Tuthmosis III. He fucked them all in the ass.
Darko2625 1 month ago
Black Power at it's finest !
xxxMazooxxx 1 month ago
@xxxMazooxxx lol.... Egyptians aren't black....
TalonMercenary 1 month ago
@TalonMercenary (Numidian Mercnaries are.)
MJFAN666 1 month ago
@TalonMercenary they are cylons and they demand for cookie from mankind!!!
hanrinch 3 weeks ago
@TalonMercenary Africans aren't black? News to me
xxxMazooxxx 2 weeks ago
@xxxMazooxxx I said Egyptians......North Africans are not black.
TalonMercenary 2 weeks ago
@TalonMercenary Really? Anceint Egyptians weren't black. What were they then? Chinese? Nordic? LOL you are a fool ^_^
xxxMazooxxx 1 week ago
@xxxMazooxxx How stupid are you, READ my comments, Ancient Egyptians have the same skin shade as modern Egyptians do today. Nubians (e.g modern Sudan) had dark skin, and the Ancient Egyptians hated them
TalonMercenary 1 week ago
@TalonMercenary Wrong look at the color they used for themselves It was a reddish brown color. Not light brown, not tan. No Arabs are reddish brown unless they are of African descent. Arabs are same color as western Asians like Syrians and the Egyptians hated them. You lose ^_^
xxxMazooxxx 1 week ago
@xxxMazooxxx "used for themselves". What? Nobody chooses what colour they are born with. Ancient Egyptians were tan, deal with it. The only "black history" in Ancient Egypt were their Nubian slaves. Stop being a troll
TalonMercenary 1 week ago
@TalonMercenary I see the truth hurts your feelings. Sorry but black is black. You need to look at some hieroglyphics. They were not tan. Black Power!!! I love being just like my Ancient Egyptian brothers. ^_^
xxxMazooxxx 1 week ago
at the end it makes it seem as if this had been a total victory for Ramesses II which was not and from an operational point of view one could even say it was a defeat
truvianni 3 months ago
200 wives? those good ol' times eh?
sm0keshell 3 months ago 2
Holy Bible is the best source for historical evidence...the British and the collective West are abandoning the very things made them successful...just wait and see, you people will soon be overwhelmed by the Chinese and Sub-Saharan Africans, whom are turning to Christianity!
KnightsHospitallerBC 3 months ago
@KnightsHospitallerBC The Bible is only of limited historical use. What made us successful was oppression and hegemony at the expense of human rights and equality and the Chinese are not turning to Christianity. As for the Africans, frankly after all their people have been through in the last few centuries I think they deserve some prosperity at last.
HotDawwgg 2 months ago
200 wives..
If Barney ever heard of this, he would go back in time and assasinate Ramses haha
sebbekung123 4 months ago
Disappointing that the two biggest empires bragging of their greatness only had one battle using only about 10% of their armies and then cowed down to 90 year boring peace.
YappyRaccoon 4 months ago
academia only tells you what they want you to know,but if you go looking for self then you will find the truth my friend,for the truth will set your mind free.
take care.
lovesack 5 months ago
2:34 It is funny to me how often Egyptian pictures show the pharaoh with an erection.
Ebuverthebicepcurler 5 months ago
@Ebuverthebicepcurler Also, I would say having 200 wives was Ramses greatest achievement.
Ebuverthebicepcurler 5 months ago
one battle he did lose was with moses and god let my people go for ramses did not and the rest my friends is history.
lovesack 6 months ago
@lovesack Except the exodus story is not exactly considered history any more than any number of legendary or mythical works within academia.
Ebuverthebicepcurler 5 months ago
it is called a turkey shoot. aka thanks giving mutha fuckaz!
SirBrianCabrera 6 months ago
technically, the pharaoh Ramses didn't achieve his goal... as he didn't manage to recapture Kadesh. some people may say he won a battle and lost the war. but I think he might have been way smarter :P
at that time, moving an army of 20,000 so far away from home, would be a logistic nightmare! egyptian soldiers must have been exhausted and ravaged by hunger... yet, Ramses transmitted a clear message to the hitties: "stay away from egyptian borders!" and the hittites never bothered him again...
bogdancomm 8 months ago
The Pharao of the exodus was not Ramses, it was one called Merenptah. but the exodus itself didnt really happen in the same way written in the bible, it was much less dramatic I should say. one thing is a fact though, before the Jews left Egypt they stole all the gold they can find from Us Egyptians, and they used that gold to make the golden Calf when they were lost in the Sinai.
kimokamal5 8 months ago
@kimokamal5 in fact, not even Merenptah mentioned in his stelle the israelites... he mentioned a small nomadic people that was entirely dispersed by his army, that's all. but the all of the cities in that land was ruled by canaanite lords... not israetites! the egyptians were well organized and kept exact records about that campaign. we know the name of the canaanite lords ruling the land and even the amount of gold, silver and other things they offered to Merenptah to spare them... ;)
bogdancomm 8 months ago
@bogdancomm thank u for the reply. the only way that those people (israelites, canaanite or whatever u wanna call them) were represented in egyptian carvings was an old man holding a walking stick in his hand (which is very funny but also true) and the egyptains called them Hapiro and Hebrew comes from that word and it means Wanderers or Passer by........
kimokamal5 8 months ago
He exposed a little truth in almost saying, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A BIBLE...YADAYADA, THERE LIES THE TRUTH OF THE AFRICAN ORIGINS OF MODERN MYTHOLOGY AND SPIRITUALLY. RELIGION IS FOR SEMITES AND INDO-EFFEMINATE ONES!
krucialred26 9 months ago
@sourrooster -_^ and they both did
Gideon2230 10 months ago
XD rome total war
oz2973 11 months ago
its called qadesh
PeterTheChinesePanda 11 months ago
The Hittite version of this battle has THEM winning it....
Rather than a victory, Kadesh was a 'push.' The main forces never fought. Both opponents were so shaken by the results of this meeting engagement that they both called a truce.
staydput 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
im doing a research paper on the battle of kadesh...can anyone help me with a thesis... my e-mail is Jford645@gmail.com
Jford645 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Never ever trap in a traffic jams
xmaple1x 1 year ago
ah this is way in the army they make you cutt your hair now
raaspider 1 year ago
@raaspider Alexander the Great had all of his men shave their beards, so that the enemy wouldn't pull on them if the hand to hand fighting became nasty.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294
To be bearded was to be a barbarian - literally.
Shaving his men permitted instant recognition of friend/or foe. In a world of non-uniform clothing/dress this was the single best way to ID his crew.
Grabbing a beard is useless: with one hand on a shield - at all times - and the other holding a blade - at all times - where do you get your third hand?
staydput 1 year ago
@staydput When you're in a huge brawl, eventually you're going to lose your shield or your sword. You're not always going to keep it. Then you have to resort to anything you can to hurt and kill the guy trying to kill you, If he has a beard, guess what? Easy pickings. A lot of Macedonians wore beards... it was a tradition.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@Alexandros1294
To lose either makes one a dead man.
Grabbing a beard...
Good grief.
You're dead.
staydput 11 months ago
@Alexandros1294 i don't think having a long hair or a long beard is a disadvantage in these kinds of battles. if your opponent is foolish enough to occupy one of his hands when he could thrust his sword in your belly, then you have the advantage. you can thrust your sword in his belly while he is too busy b itch fighting.
TheScienceofnature 8 months ago
@TheScienceofnature alot of people had very long hair at the time. in a fight it would be swinging around with its length and it would be easy to grab and off balance your opponent. that could decide the fight.
maneatstaco 6 months ago
It is funny that they put this on "Decisive Battles" because this one wasn't.
igratkransy 1 year ago
@igratkransy Almost none of them are so lets just watch this :D
VictumRoManius 1 year ago
i liked the way the chariots were killed by the egyptian archers
MelonRicochet 1 year ago
Is this rome total war? (the game) LOL
ShaunDavidCarter 1 year ago
@ShaunDavidCarter yeah
ProudMexican3 1 year ago
BLACK POWER!
aey20 1 year ago
wow ramses had 156 SONS?!?!
TheWoodstock2009 1 year ago
@TheWoodstock2009 Pimp..
it8nky0u 1 year ago
Yet the Bogus Jews want us to think they have something to do with the Area called Palestine. Hear what the man said the Bible would not have been written in Egyptian, but Hittite's.
maria610421 1 year ago
at the end of the day we are all people fighting for resources culture influence
ramsantosjr 1 year ago
way too geared towards Egypt, you need to read the hittie battle report.
The hittie's knew where all the Egypt army was as they had spies all over the place, the egyptain army was days apart and half was left on the other side of a river.
zagan1 1 year ago
that was pretty cool he had like 100 sons and 100 daughters.
He musta fucked like 500 women.
mongoose100989 1 year ago
Comment removed
netzero26 1 year ago
Comment removed
MegaVenom777 2 years ago
the old biblical stories have a lot of truth in them, just not in the way it was written down. Christians back then (and now) tend to twist the truth to their concenience. for instance, mozes walking through the sea probably happened, just not in the bullshit way the bible says. He went to a fordable place and crossed
alaricofarabia 2 years ago
i loled so me some proof that its not the same also theirs to parts of the bible old testmant dealt with the jews and the new testament for christain yet both support each other. more so for christains, so i dont get your bullshit that you writing. and by the way the bible was writing first in hebrew than in greek and later latin and other Langauges also diffrant form you got new king james and new international bible read them both and come back to me. you need to do more research.
MegaVenom777 2 years ago
is thet game rome total war
lecic13 2 years ago 2
Woooo GOOD JOB Rammses u got to asses to bang.
APPLEPIE978 2 years ago
once im made hittiet chariots by mixing roman bruti horses and pontanian chariots it looks ust like that
thebestanthe3rd 2 years ago
Too much armour on units. The infantry especially would've been primarily unarmoured levies. Oh well...
UserNameForYeeTube 2 years ago
Ok, I don't get it? Why was ramsey praised when he didn't even capture kadesh?? It just went back to the status quo and the battle was fought for nothing other than a peace treaty. No wonder Egypt got easily owned by the greeks when they came knocking.
smashbros400 2 years ago 3
He was praised for the fact he manged to survive and manged to save much of his army with the fact his army was strung out over long distance and he was being surprised attacked.
As for the greeks wining Egypt was slightly off, Egypt was already capitulated by the persian empire before hand, it just when alexander come they simply surrendered as they do not like the persian rulers
meow7983 2 years ago
I think it's more to do with the fact that his power over the Egpytians gave him strong influence over them. He used propaganda and twisted the story of The Battle of Qadesh. He made out that the Hitites were slaughtered and the Egyptians won a massive victory.
DJShade707 2 years ago
You have to remember how overwhelmed Rammses was and he still fought to a stale mate.
Tutankhamun844 2 years ago
the amount of arrows used had the effect of a machine gun!! same as in US civil war, when thousands of musket rounds, fired at once, forced troops on either side to use trench warfare to survive the massive rate of fire!
acerb45666555 2 years ago
Ramses was very lucky! Hittites were tough northern dudes used to rough conditions and a more warrior based society. meaning even Hittite peasents were probably armed are very independant minded. much like Highland Scots!
acerb45666555 2 years ago
200 wives and 96 sons?! OMG!
Bierreisender 2 years ago 5
He is the pimp of the world with those number. No player can equal is ass getting ability.
LordJudgement1818 2 years ago 2
@LordJudgement1818
Au contraire, King Soloman broke that record a few centuries later.....
crawhip2 2 years ago
Except that King Solomon didn't actually exist. He's nothing but another Biblical myth with no basis in actual history.
furtherdefinitions 2 years ago
Strange opinion. King Solomon actually existed (regardless of biblical myths). These myths always based on any real events! If not existed Solomon, then why did existed (for example) Hammurabi? IMHO, even Joseph or Moses could really exist. And at last; Im atheist.
Alex197919 2 years ago 2
Okay, King Solomon existed the way King Arthur existed. In other words, he was probably a number of different kings or leaders combined into a myth. Historical? No, there is absolutely no archealogical evidence to support him or Moses. We know Ramses existed, because of all of the historic and archealogical evidence. If his exist, why not Solomon or Moses? I am not an atheist, but I know the difference between allegorical tales and facts.
furtherdefinitions 2 years ago
Maybe you're right. I am not a specialist on Ancient Middle East or archaeology. I just read many historical books, (some written in USSR). Their authors hypercritical to the Bible, but never doubted Jewish kings and even called the exact dates of their rule. Why shouldn't I believe I. M. Diakonov (the largest specialist to Ancient East in Russia)?
Alex197919 2 years ago
"is absolutely no archealogical evidence to support him" - But exist archaeological evidence of the Jewish Kingdom (since 10 cent. bc - or even before). If we do not know the names of real rulers, then why not Saul, David or Solomon? These names are preserved in the legends, was written in the Bible. This cannot be randomness. So, I respect your opinion, but but remain with my.
Alex197919 2 years ago
Comment removed
MegaVenom777 2 years ago
The Shishaq of the Bible has generally been associated with Shoshenq I of Egypt. fragment of a stele bearing Shoshenq I's name has been found at Megiddo which affirms this king's claim, in several Karnak temple walls, that he invaded the land of Israel and conquered 170 towns there.
MegaVenom777 2 years ago
@Furtherdefinitions their are facts the jewish people who writing what they say in the old testament from god, god back then wasnt nice he was harsh because of sin.He names the princess who adopted Moses as Merris, wife of Pharaoh Chenephres. also Moses figures in several of Jesus' messages maybe jesus was a magician or maybe just maybe the son of God which you dont deny that jesus is really because their is alot more proof that he is what he said he was he dead and rose again.
MegaVenom777 2 years ago
@MegaVenom777 this comment made no sense.... what you said in a nut shell was 'what i think is true cause its true' wanna give some reasons why?
lngistic 1 year ago
@LordJudgement1818
2/2...
Although, i'm not quite sure if he had 'as many' son/daughter offsprings though.....
He is still recognized for his record high 'marriage conquests'.
crawhip2 2 years ago
well marriage dont mean you got to get down with the lady at. Rams did that he go the kids to prove is "conquests"
LordJudgement1818 2 years ago
Comment removed
crawhip2 2 years ago
i can change in this video units on more realistic and historical , i heave this units. and mod for rome total war
vlad9vt 2 years ago
they've done this on rome total war lol
speddsk8rocker 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
units not realistic
vlad9vt 2 years ago
Thats because they reconstructed this battle with Rome: Total War, a game that was made about 5 years ago. No shit its unrealistic!
elacruisay11 2 years ago
I used know a guy named Ramses back in school..... he was quite eccentric.
ereiou 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The reconstruction of this battle is soly base on Zegyptian sources. Three excavated peace treaties found in Turkey, in the formar Hittite capital, tells a very different story on the outcome of this battle. According to this treaty, the Egyptians lost the battle...
So there you go.. no source checking before making this decumentary, given the fact that the plackes were found in 1906.
facezy 2 years ago
The outcome of this battle is actually open to interpretation. The Egyptians beat the Hittites in the open field but they failed to accomplish their main objective: capturing the city of Kadesh. This is an example of winning the battle but losing the war.
The Hittites could've also surrounded Ramses and killed or captured him. However, the Hittites didn't need to do so because their objective was to keep the city secure, which they accomplished. Naturally, both sides can claim victory.
sourrooster 2 years ago 49
@sourrooster that is why its called a draw.
TheScienceofnature 8 months ago
@sourrooster: Ramses only achieved a tactical retreat, while the Hittites achieved an operational victory and strategic victory. Not to mention the fact that the Hittites gave 10,000 egyptian infantry and 2,000 chariots a good run for their money while only having to use 3,700 of their chariots and none of their infantry. If anything this should have been a decisive victory as the Egyptian army was more well trained than the Hittite army and their levy system.
vidman163 5 months ago
it is obvious that hittite was just try to defend its allies, if they charge further deep into south they could easily crush rameses like little bug. but they were back to the place rather than conquer large chunk of territory that is far away from home.
they fought for justice. romeses is like anceint version of saddam hussein.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
In other words they were pussys!! they had a larger army but still afraid to fight rameses who was so far away from Egypt... no wonder the Hetites are extinct while Egypt is still there.
adamsky18 2 years ago
there was point to attack further into egyptian territory, beside hittite did accomplish their goal, defend city state of kadesh from reign of terror of rameses. and you must understand they were totally different type of empire. egypt was territorial empire at the time so they would want to expend as far as possible. but hittite in the other hand more like british empire that regarding on trade/economic purpose more that territory quest. and egyptian were tried to violating their benefit.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
and egypt was collapse earlier that hittite shorty after the death of rameses. the empire he conquer split into many of small kingdom.
go wikipedia
blueuser4000 2 years ago
first hitte collapsed earlier than Egypt , that's very clear , u can get it from "any historical resource"
-
second , if you consider more than 857 years to be "SHORTLY" then u are right that Egypt collapsed after rameses
note that i didn't take in my account the Ptolemaic Dynasty which were considered as a pharaoh
3DVector 2 years ago
if ptolemaic can be counted, then i can say lydia is hittite's successor state since lydian were also claim them selves as king of hittites. and pontus also claim they have heritage with hittite too. even persian emperor darius the first stated him self as both pharaoh and master of hittite. title doesnt mean anything.
true egyptian empire was collapse after the death of rameses. the later dynasties do not consider having any connection with these royal house hold in the past.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
1- i said i didn't take ptolemaic in my account
2- even if i take them , they took much of ancient egyptian traditions NOT JUST THE NAME.
3- AGAIN , it didn't collapsed after ramses , it BEAGAN to weaken by the time of Ramses III who regin several decade after ramses
3DVector 2 years ago
we are talking about the political heritage and you are talk about cultural influence??? of cause ptolemaic may successes the legacy of egyptian religion and culture but the governing institution and government system were totally macedonian style. as a regime egypt was much dead already under ptolemaic era.
and during the reign of rameses 3rd the empire was already broke apart and he spend most of his life tried to put all pieces back together. he never accomplish due to assassination.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
plz , READ READ READ about the subject
don't just through ignorant words
-
i will wait u then to discuss
3DVector 2 years ago
i read exodus and bible and it tells me ramese is evil. slave master and arrogant idiot.
at least alexender was not as bad as he was.
PS: according to exodus egyptian power collapsed soon after mose flee egypt. and hittite stood still for another 50 years after rameses deceased. egypt collapsed in 1200bc and hittite was 1170s bc
blueuser4000 2 years ago
*the name ramses never appear neither in bible or in quran , that's wat u read!!
*according to mr.Zahi hawas , Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities , he said the ramses isn't the pharaoh of exodus!
* AGAIN u repeat the collapse issue without a resource! , which mean that's it's from ur head!
3DVector 2 years ago
all my resource were based on research from stanford university and british broadcast center(bbc), discovery network and history chanel. i am rather believe western media are more neutral standard than old guy.
stanford research team had dated the collapse of egyptian new kingdom arround 1200 bc soon after the death of ramses . and ramses was in the reign during the exodus period.
and egyptian did not call their monarch "pharaoh" until 26th dynasty.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
and ramses 3rd in 20th dynasty do not consider in new kingdom era.
some wikipedia source had mess up. i fought those hot head middle easter throught wiki-editing war so i am clearly understand your source was simply from these idiot
blueuser4000 2 years ago
Man... everytime i want to have a good laugh i read your comments..with all due respect to America it's a new country of only 500 years civilization not counting the native American civilization which has nothing to do with you.You slaughtered them & took their land then you say Ramesis was a war criminal!! What about the black slaves you kidnapped & brought from Africa to do your dirty work for you?Where do you get off trashing other people when you yourselves did crimes against humanity!!!
adamsky18 2 years ago
Comment removed
blueuser4000 2 years ago
we dont KIDNAPPING african black, we bought them with cash...real cash!! at least we dont act like mafia like mexican or spanish/italian do. and azetic was declined nearly 2 centuries before british arrive in boston in late 17th century. wtf is that to do with us? against humanity? where the fuck did you get this idea? at least we don't invade other innocent nation like you do.
again..stop bash me with your hot head and stupidity.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
again...wtf is slavery to do with trash other people's culture? you are actually getting more hot head than i was expecting. and natives declination was cause by us? go back to high school and fix your american history because i believe you never graduate from high school.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
It's quite obvious you're the illiterate here because aztecs were in mexico & the british first settled in virginia. u claim that it was ok to enslave black africans who suffered for centuries at white owners hands just because they were bought for cash!!! so u encourage the slave trade then... & what does saddam or bush or any of the bullshit uv been feeding us for so long hv 2 do with kadesh ur just a dumbass racist asshole who doesn't even speak English so do us all a favour & fuck off...
adamsky18 2 years ago
Comment removed
blueuser4000 2 years ago
saddam was found guilty when he invaded kuwait. later then he hold MDW and ignore the order from un security council. and yeah he did act like rameses....arrogant and idiot.
again...improve your spelling/grammar before you start vomiting something you ate from last day. cause it makes people wanna throw away in the controversy.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
I won't even comment about ur English.... it speaks for itself!! How can u be an american & have no clue about ur country's language didn't they teach u the language at the redneck school u obviously went to in n carolina?? As for everything else u wrote well i can tell that u suck a lot of redneck dick that u don't know what ur talkin about anymore......& as usual fuck off.....
adamsky18 2 years ago
first before u start wash my face with ur argument there is few things u must know: 1st azetic was destroyed by spanish. 2nd we aint racist, it was true that we were enslave people but we did not capture&sell them for benefit. we are just consumer. 3rd most of slavery dealer were either pirate or spanish cargos. they were the true slavery dealer.
and yeah kadesh was the war of evil that hittite and its allies against the invasion from evil egyptian.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
Once again ..... fuck off.....
adamsky18 2 years ago
evil is crying!!!!!!!!cry louder lol
blueuser4000 2 years ago
please dont enslave me to build the pyramid lol
blueuser4000 2 years ago
3:16 the egyptian bow at its best lol
DannyJamesRead 2 years ago
my bad... it's Muwatalli vs Rameses
jfrd28 3 years ago 2
it is george bush of hittite vs saddam hussien of egypt
blueuser4000 2 years ago
:)) LOL
jfrd28 2 years ago
ramese is a war criminal. but lucky he got escape.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
it's clear you are a jealous of ancient Egyptian history
i suggest u r an stupied american nigger , who don't have history to revive
3DVector 2 years ago
thank you, we dont like to dig garbage from junk yard. and yes we are so jealous that you guys having alot of junk in your backyard. and it smell!
blueuser4000 2 years ago
My garbage lure the whole world to come to Egypt and to search in it's great History!!
3DVector 2 years ago
now i can believe that you are reside in garbage can all these year. and reviewing how many cockroach hid inside the garbage bag and kitchen remain. yeah.....it IS GREAT!
blueuser4000 2 years ago
is this Hattushili of the Hittites vs Rameses of the Egyptians?
jfrd28 3 years ago
Thanks for posting! A few months ago I couldn't find these battles anywhere.
CKtheFat 3 years ago
hittits wear a impire that lived in present day Turkey. Arculoligest found a hidden Hitite texts which states that they has a civil war shortly after Kadesh in which joew all ready stated. In the bibal, there are 4 kingdoms that have the power to call each other "great kings" and theae powers are egypt, assyria, Babylon, and the other unknown. In the treaty after the battle of Kadesh, Ramese referes to a unknown ruler named "great king" making him a super power. It was the Hittites. This random
Parmenion326 3 years ago
Is English your native tongue? I certainly hope not.
hekesuede 3 years ago
The Egyptians were still the rulers of lower Canaan and enslaved many thousands of Canaanites and Hebrews for building projects under Ramesses II, perhaps the greatest Pharaoh of Egyptian history.
jstrouse 3 years ago 2
aside from the fact that thier is no archeological evidence that hebrews were ever envslaved by the pharoh's or that the exodus ever happend
thissucks1337 3 years ago 5
Thank you so much for posting!
DSJ504 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ehh what faction are the egyptians fighting? i havent heard of a hetite empire- doesnt exist!!!
bobslay12 3 years ago
dude in the time of RTW their wasnt hittie empire anymore. this battle was in 1200 BC the game is arround the romen empire 300 BC.
LBman123456 3 years ago 4
No matter what is said at the end of the day an Egyptian army only half the size of the Hetites massive force & in fact with only a quarter of his army, Ramses stopped the Hetites and forced them to retreat. So what happened to the superior Hetite chariots and proffesional soldiers? The battle was a draw but in fact it was a victory for Egypt.
adamsky18 3 years ago
Tactical victory, strategic defeat. Both leaders had their plans destroyed-Mutwallis' army was ruined, and Rameses had no hope of taking Kadesh.
Tareltonlives 3 years ago
rameses was and still is a liar, and you just got brainwash. now we can see why are still some middle easter still worship saddam hussein.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
Still is??!! The guy's been dead for about 3000 years so why do you have a grudge against him? And for the record all the rulers at the time were like Saddam Heussein because they were kings & even considered Gods by their people... so what's your point??!! It's obvious you just want to trash Egypt without any purpose, oh & please learn English before you decide to mutalate the language with your horrible grammer.
adamsky18 2 years ago
trash egyptian? there is one thing I dont get from you middle easter. worship a dictator is a threat to the freedom. and basically I was telling the truth that a dictator can lie his/her past. you just got mad because your history was nothing but darkness.
and what is wrong with my grammar? and look at you. you couldnt even spell it right.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
First of all i'm not going to discuss your English language because you can't even complete a sentence without making a dozen mistakes. Second Egypt's history was the cradle of civilization for the world everything the pharroes left behind is proof enough. Finally Saddam was a mass murderer who deserved what he got & by the way wasn't Egyptian so why are you always bringing him up?! Where are you from?? Maybe you can enlighten us about your country's great civilization...
adamsky18 2 years ago
here we go....if you can reply ppl in one minute without making mistake. i would admit it i have terrible skill in typing. but before this arguing ever start i must mention this: you aint that good either. atleast i'm faster than you.
and about the egyptian history. i can feel that you aint different from these chinese nationalist i just fought in eastern history forum. you are just being....hot head!
at least i being standard in viewing history and not been hot head like you guys
blueuser4000 2 years ago
and yeah from exodus and early old testment. ramese was described as tyrannic ruler whom enslave the canaanite and hebrew captive. and also in these source it tells that rameses DID massive massacre the resistance in canaan. if he's not as bad as saddam then stalin and hitler may have ascend into haven. cause cause they dont cut ppl's head and right hand like he did.
and do not convince me like a communist.
blueuser4000 2 years ago
Ok now your English is getting very funny you really suck at it...... "at least i being standard in viewing history and not been hot head like you guys" those were your words & you say i'm bad at English!!!!! & why are you afraid to say where you're from?? you're not making any sense.... what does communist or chinese nationalists have to do with saddam, hitler or stalin these are three different systems of government you're just typing words without knowing what the hell you're talking about!!
adamsky18 2 years ago
Comment removed
blueuser4000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well. before you start bash me with these argument consider you are just a clown. believe me you never take english of art...
i'm from north carolina and as a student i believe in western researches than you. in many case politics can heavily influence the history recording and even rewrite the history itself. so technically rameses's lagacy was no different than stalin's "NO GREAT PURGE" theory(stalin claimed there was no great purge in his reign.)
again you are still a hot head
blueuser4000 2 years ago
The Holy Bible is a religous text and cannot be taken wholly as historical evidence. If the story of the Exodus is true, which although debatable is plausable to an extent, the name of the Pharaoh is not mentioned and most academics agree it is unlikely to be Ramses.
Also the Old Testiment is the Jewish Bible therefore Exodus is a Jewish story. The Jewish authors could hardly be considered neutral when discusing Pharaoh and therefore their accounts cannot be taken as absolute truth
ashleyjhannay 2 years ago 19
The Bible is of the highest quality archeological evidence (best preserved text in world history... by FAR) and should be taken very seriously. Although archeology will never be able to give a complete picture of the past, it always confirmed the claims of the Bible, giving further evidence of the Bible's "scientific authority". Archeology may not be able to find and reconstruct all of the Bible's stories, but not finding evidence is not evidence in itself to claim that the Bible is unreliable.
dbrin566 1 year ago
@dbrin566 No it's not, lmao. Herodotus and Thucydides are far more accurate and higher quality than the Bible.
Alexandros1294 1 year ago
@ashleyjhannay shut the fuck up you dingo fucking cracker.
Dragonmanxx5 10 months ago
@ashleyjhannay it wasnt ramses they identified some other pharoh that was possibly mentioned in the bible
worldofpaul12 9 months ago
@ashleyjhannay ------The Holy Bible has NEVER....I repeat NEVER been proven false concerning historical data. Matter of fact it is the #1 recourse used for archeological work in that region. Furthermore every time the so called educated folk have tried to point out why the Bible is wrong, eventually it is proven accurate.
rfurco8 8 months ago
@rfurco8 Could you prove the exodus? We have the list of egyptian pharaohs and none of them mention the israelites before ~800 BC. We have plenty of egyptian, babilonian or assyrian texts and none of them mention something like a slave mass migration. The kings of all those people used to record every detail of their reign... The good ones for themselves and the bad ones for their rivals. But none of the egyptians' rivals mentioned the israelites... just because they didn't exist at that time!
bogdancomm 8 months ago
@bogdancomm ---LOL...You are not trying to say that the story of Exodus isn't true are you? That is just laughable.
rfurco8 8 months ago
@rfurco8 dude, I'm a christian... but I'm not stupid. I do believe in God and Jesus is my mentor... but I repeat: I'm not stupid. there's not even the slightest evidence of such a mass migration as described in the book of exodus... then it probably never happened. let me tell you what I think: the jewish history is a fake story... forged outside the real world's frame. this won't stop me trusting Moses though. Jesus told me to trust the words of Moses... but not his story. get the difference?
bogdancomm 8 months ago
@bogdancomm of course, they won't record a massive slave migration of israelites. What pharaoh, who takes great pride in treating himself as a god, would record a mass migration of the basic economy of egypt? Why would he record something that makes him look weak. That's not how history works. The Bible has never been proven wrong on even the slightest of matters. "Matter of fact it is the #1 recourse used for archeological work in that region" - (rfurco8) Humans are sinful and make mistakes.
rs2fifa10 4 months ago
@rs2fifa10 we have a lot records about Egypt from their babylonian neighbours... especially when it comes about egiptian failures ;)
not a single babylonian record mentions the israelites; NOT A SINGLE ONE! instead they mention a lot of canaanite land lords paying tribute either to Egipt or to Babylon. no sign of israel before ~800 BC... NOT A SINGLE ONE!
I'm a christian, but I'm not stupid... what's next: the dinosaurs didn't exist because they're not mentioned in The Bible??? come on...
bogdancomm 4 months ago
@rs2fifa10 excuse me but the Egyptians kept records of everything specially property and slaves were precisely that so it is impossible (of course you can believe what you choose to) that there would have been an exodus so large and not have been recorded in any Egyptian official record.
truvianni 3 months ago
@rs2fifa10 Israelite slaves were actually a rarity in Egypt. The pharaoh usually levied lower class Egyptians to do this work. He did this because native Egyptians saw their work as sacred and good, while the Israelites were obviously not very enthusiastic. The tribes of Israel would not have presented a very large workforce anyway. They were only one tribal grouping among many in the Levant at the time.
DestroyerOfSense000 2 months ago
@rs2fifa10 the bible has been proven wrong on innumerable occasions. Please say you're not a literalist
HotDawwgg 2 months ago
@ashleyjhannay well said,. spot on!
kimokamal5 8 months ago