Battle of Kadesh (Part 2/3)

[Icebergeification]

ok seriously what game is this?

[SGRollingStone]

@Icebergeification Rome: Total War

[Icebergeification]

@SGRollingStone thanks

[imhungry4444]

100TH LIKE, what do i get?

[ThatGuyBen99]

@imhungry4444 A cookie.

[7913Daniel]

short localized wars... more than 4000 men?

[hanrinch]

this is no battlefield3/modern warfare that you simply can solo the whole campaign with 4~6 players....

[erwinboeruutgrunn]

gee, was that John Ray guy stoned when he did this movie/=O

[mariscaljosh]

is this show still playing on tv?

[mrwallastick]

yeah two man only in egyptian chariot its not accurate

[goodfty]

@mrwallastick its a video game

[rkhale02]

i wish guns were never made so that we could still be fighting with swords, guns are just barbaric

[iXChRoNiiKzx]

@rkhale02 War is barbaric

[Snuggernaught]

@rkhale02 Hacking people apart isn't barbaric?

It's not like fencing matches decided wars.

[hanrinch]

the graphic is laggy as hell....... they should have get dual core 2 qx9770(at that time) + geforce 8800ultra 3 way SLI+ asus p45 rampage + 16gb OCZ Platinum edtion. because the frame rate will end up really horrible in such huge scale combat.

[Kezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzy]

well this is stupid i was just watching another movie from this guy and it said that Egyptian chariots had 2 men because they were smaller and faster yet in this 1 they have 3 men...

[zagan1]

@Kezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzy

It's the models used.

The Hittite chariots were killers had 4-5 people on them and had 3-4 horses each, they also were top chariot archers as well.

To say the Egyptian chariots were ok is laughable seeing as the Hittites had beaten the Egyptians in every battle they ever had.

[pillowbugg]

oh oh.... ever have that "oh, shit" feeling?

[41htdex]

He called them the effeminate ones hahaha

[oscarmarcelo]

long live the figthers!!!

[alaricofarabia]

@oscarmarcelo BI LA KAIFAAA

[Strategos300]

I love "Decisive battle's"!

[englishfrenchgerman]

@Strategos300 Have you ever seen Time Commanders? You might enjoy that too

[aeonflux67]

Ah nothing like a good old brutal beating to get the truth out of someone. The Hittites coughed up under interrogation. Much more worthy result than treating your enemy to candy and foot massages like the modern approach

[SmilingJack100]

@aeonflux67 That's all so right except for the act that nothing you just said was true. Every single statmetn you just made, except for the fact that the hittites gave in, has any bearing on reality.

[Oldcartoons571]

@aeonflux67 Modern approach? Yeah im sure torture assures people wont just lie under torture Sure

[aeonflux67]

@Oldcartoons571 = it depends. In this case, the Egyptians are torturing many of their enemy. Based on the confessions of many tortured individuals, they would have a fair chance of getting an accurate idea if the information is based on fact, and not based on a single recipient of torture telling them what they want to hear Torture of multiple enemies can yield results. It no different to a product survey principle: the less people asked, the more unreliable the data gathered. Simple really.

[DestroyerOfSense000]

@aeonflux67 Well if it's anything like the conspiracy theorists say the candy has cyanide compounds in it and the foot masseuses are infecting you with ebola

[joew01453]

that stuff about Egyptian chariots is untrue Hittite chariots were faster stronger and more manoeuvrable and carried 3 men 2 warriors and a driver this was because Hittite chariots had the axle mounted in the centre instead of the back with independently moving wheels. also although the Hittites lost the battle they won the war.

[Tareltonlives]

The Egyptian chariots were lighter, though, and that gave them an edge in maneuverability. They just used different methods to improve their chariots.

[joew01453]

being light is of little advantage in chariot warfare, chariots were designed to be thrown hard directly into the front of enemy formations to smash them apart so a strong, fast and heavy chariot is therefore better, the Hittite chariots were stronger because the axle was mounted at the centre of gravity rather than at the back this also made the turning circle smaller and saved weight so it is likely that the Hittite chariots were more manoeuvrable

[Tareltonlives]

Actually, chariots were not used for shock by the Egyptians, which was unique. They were used as support for their archers and infantry, which still formed the core of their army. That's why they didn't have such specialized and advanced chariots. It was their tactics, not their construction, that led to the Hittite disaster.

[joew01453]

Ok but the Hittites still won the war and in the end they forced the Egyptians to sign a very one sided peace agreement

[Tareltonlives]

The Hittites won the campaign-the war dragged on for twenty years with the Hittites having a slight but not decisive advantage.

[joew01453]

Hittite tablets found in Hattusa tell a story of overwhelming victory over the Egyptians when they were combined with the Egyptian version of events historians concluded that the Hittites had easy won the war with there high quality professional army

[Tareltonlives]

The Egyptian tablets also claim an overwhelming victory. Usually this means that neither side won decisively. The Hittites kept their territories, but the balance of power was not altered.

[joew01453]

information on the Hittite tablets states that they ended up in control of kadesh and therefore also controlled Syria and Palestine which is was massive gain in territories making the Hittite empire the largest empire in the world at the time but only for a  short period of time

[Tareltonlives]

They already controlled Kadesh. They kept what they had and moved on to control the rest of Syria. However, the Egyptians kept attacking. While the attacks were unsuccessful, the Hittites exhausted themselves.

[joew01453]

the Hittites didn't control kadesh the neither did the Egyptians kadesh was an independent state. Ramesses II wanted to make his name so he decided to lead an attack on the city. he new that control of kadesh would give him control of Syria (he already controlled Palestine) and control of Syria would make Egypt the most powerful empire in the world. the Hittites didn't want this because they had planned to do the same thing so that they would have somewhere to channel there armies into Egypt

[Tareltonlives]

Kadesh had always been a leader of a number of cities in Syria and Palestine. The Hittites gained political influence over Kadesh over the Egyptians; that's why Ramses II tried to take it back.

[joew01453]

i think that your information must come from wikipedia there account of kadesh is almost entirely in accurate perhaps you should read RAMSES: THE BATTLE OF KADESH BY CHRISTIAN JACQ despite being a novel the account of the battle and events leading up to the battle are all utterly accurate and it's an excellent read for any amateur historian

[Tareltonlives]

I got my information from Richard A. Gabriel's "Ancient Armies at War"

[blueuser4000]

nope, ramese tried to conquer and make it as a directly controlled province and step-rock to take over entire middle east. hittite in the other hand are no fool too. they didnt want to break the power balance and they didnt want to see someone do the same, so this campaign is simply between expansion and anti-extension. if hittite lose, it will be the last day for them.

[Lolixelia]

nope your wrong

[blueuser4000]

you sir are been brainwashed.

[Lolixelia]

nope your wrong

[blueuser4000]

again another fanboy..........

[Lolixelia]

nope your wrong

[666valhalonia666]

@blueuser4000 i agree with you on all but 1 point, the hittites more then likely didnt just want to keep the balance. i much rather think they themselves wanted to expand as much as they could, without needing to fear destruction themselves

[blueuser4000]

hittite did not try to play dirty at this point, if they want to they could had just take over kadesh but they didnt. instead they kept kadesh as a buffer state.unlike their counterpart. they never actually disband any local power and replace with their own governor once they conquered them

[blueuser4000]

hittite gave more freedom and all its local client state had only need to pay tribute to keep them independent, unlike hittie, egypt is an highly concentrated empire that power totally seize control by one person and gave no freedom to the tribe they conquered, like roman, they give only two choice: submission or cease to exist. then forced convert the people in military and religious way. so it is easily to expecting many of local leader would rather join the hand against egyptian.

[Tareltonlives]

For the same reason the Gauls and Spanish joined the Carthaginians in the Punic war, basically.

[blueuser4000]

not surprise they would join carthaginian 's side against roman. because to them, lost or give up meaning permanently slavery, homeless, or worse---extermination.

egyptian in the other hand were exactly as worse as rome. slavery or extermination is pretty common in that time.

[joew01453]

in front of kadesh the Hittites were caught with there armies scattered believing the Egyptians to be several days away which allowed the Egyptians to win the battle but they quickly began to suffer many strings of defeats against the professional Hittite army and were forced to withdraw. the Hittites had also suffered heavy casualty and so could not press on into Egypt itself and instead made the Egyptians sign a humiliating peace agreement

[Tareltonlives]

The Hittites were not "caught" scattered. The king sent in his chariotry without infantry support, allowing the Egyptians to survive. There was no fighting afterwords, as the armies had both inflicted too many casualties. Hostilities had to resume ten years later. The Hittites had no intention of pressing on; conquest of the other superpower was not the goal, control of Syria and Palestine was.

[joew01453]

this is not the information have i have all the accounts that I've read say that to limit the cost of supply the Hittite army marched in 3 parts with the chariots quite reasonably acting as a vanguard to the rest of the army.

there were many bloody and rather sizeable skirmishes after kadesh that most often resulted in Hittite victory

[Tareltonlives]

The fact is that the Hittite chariots were foolishly separated when they broke for spoils, and Mutwallis did NOT send in infantry.

That's not what I read. The Hittites were unable to press on; the Egyptians unable to dislodge them. The war dragged on, with neither side gaining an advantage.

[blueuser4000]

we can safe to say egyptians are like iragi people who try to invade a small helpless neighbor and hittites are like us reinforcement that crushed the egyptian invasion.

and hittite is never directly control kadesh, kadesh is a protectorate of hittie like relationship between us and japan in modern day

[Tareltonlives]

A better analogy was Kadesh as a third-world country with the Egyptians and Hittites like the USA and USSR in the Cold War.

[blueuser4000]

and the long term battle of syrian campaign is like vietnam war to egyptian.

[Tareltonlives]

The model for the Hittite chariot is terrible, but that's understandable given that this period of warfare is unfortunately not represented in the game. What are cavalry doing here 400 years early, I haven't the faintest idea.

And Kadesh is NOT the earliest detailed account of the battle-the battle of Megiddo is quite well explained. This is simply the first recorded battle between superpowers.

[RarendtheBlack]

You understand why the Hittite chariot is misrepresented but not why the cavalry are? As you said, it's because this period of warfare is not represented in Rome Total War. These guys are doing the best they can.