The information gathered from the primary sources; the reliefs and inscriptions from Rameses' monuments, depicts the Pharaoh in a very positive and heroic light. The reliefs show him much larger in size relative to any of the soldiers, be they Egyptian or Hittite and in the depiction of the Hittite onslaught. It is clear that the Egyptians were outnumbered in this encounter and in the reliefs one can observe Egyptian forces suffering heavy losses around Rameses. One can clearly make out a larger than life Rameses in the centre of the skirmish, armed with his bow, atop his chariot, almost singlehandedly fending off the charging Hittite chariots and sending them hurling back into the Orontes river. The poem documenting the battle also corroborates these observations claiming that the Rameses was essentially alone in his defense(Breasted 153), accompanied by be it a few of his personal guard as his division was left scattered by the sudden attack of the Hittite chariotry.
This heroic, almost unbelievable representation of the King by the primary sources is definitely what one would expect from a propagandistic portrayal. It is obvious that Egyptian monuments built by Rameses would host displays biased towards his accomplishments. Embalming the defense with a coat of exaggeration would solidify his image, as an all powerful King, in the eyes of his subjects. Even though the poem makes no claim that the Egyptians captured Kadesh(Breasted 142), the Egyptian representations of the battle that ensued at Kadesh would suggest an Egyptian victory, and Rameses probably paraded it as such, having the gratifying reliefs reproduced six times(Breasted 147).
The foreigners, in this case the Hittites and their allies, are depicted in a very negative light, in stark contrast to Rameses. Rameses is constantly showered upon by adulatory adjectives such as the 'fierce-eyed lion'. The chief of Kheta, Muwatallis, is constantly referred to as 'the vanquished chief of Kheta'. This repetition is surely to depict him as the loser of the battle. The enemy is shown as suffering humiliating defeat at the hands of Rameses, who 'overthrew them, prostrate on their faces, and hurled them down' into the Orontes. The poem refers to Kadesh as 'Kadesh the deceitful', the 'wretched land of Kheta' again casting the foreigners as negative, and inherently deceptive(Breasted 142-150). The relief at the Abydos temple is accompanied by inscriptions which can offer us some additional information. The captured foreign enemy are shown as captives presented to the Egyptian gods Amon, Mut, and Khonsu by Rameses and each of his four sons. This religious offering of captives depicted on the south wall of the great Karnak hypostyle seems to bear religious significance, as we observe a similar scene on the hypostyle's north wall, where Rameses' father, Seti I, is seen presenting captives and spoils to Amon(Breasted 157). These glowing accounts of spoils of war seem to be a feature of post war Egyptian triumphant displays (Shaw 319).
After close critical observation of the primary sources, it is noteworthy to point out some discrepancies that arise among the textual and visual depictions. At Abu Simbel, the record states that the Hittite king, Muwatallis, arrived with 'his infantry and his chariotry', which is incorrect, since the battle was merely one of chariotry, according to the reliefs(Breasted 146).
The reliefs suffer from a common defect since their main objective was the portrayal of Rameses' personal prowess. Only the facts serving this purpose are used and the movements of the army are mentioned only as they serve to lead up to and explain the isolation of the king. Once this supreme moment is reached, the king receives the entire attention. He is shown much larger relative to the enemy and even his own soldiers, and is the central image in all the reliefs. The Egyptian army is shown scattering around Rameses, and its cowardice is used to contrast and highlight the courage of the Rameses II.
Going by the inscriptions we can conclude that Rameses was to the northwest of Kadesh(Breasted 144). Based on the orientation in which the action develops, the reliefs of the Battle of Kadesh can be classified in two groups: Group 1 which the battle proceeds from the right. These include the presentations at :Rameses II's temple at Abydos' exterior walls, the exterior walls of the 1st pylon at Luxor temple, and the south hypostyle at Karnak. Group 2 in which the battle proceeds from the left, includes the presentations at: the temple interiors at Thebes, the exterior colonnade at the Luxor temple, the exterior approach at Karnak, and the interior pillared Hypostyle at Abu Simbel. The orientation of the first group is consistent with Rameses II's view of the battlefield from the north, whereas the representations of the second group represent the battle from the south.
As it has been pointed, group 1 of the Battle of Kadesh Reliefs were placed at locations exposed to public view. These were temple sites were used for annual processions of Opet and Osiris, and the presentation of these scenes would have a significant impact on the Egyptian public, solidifying Rameses as a mighty warrior king. The placement and orientation of group 2 of the Battle of Kadesh Reliefs are apparently associated with the god Amun. Rameses exhibited 'great humility in his thanksgiving to the god Amun for his deliverance'(Manley 92). All besides one of these reliefs appear within the estate of Amun, at Thebes. At the Ramesseum these reliefs are placed on internal temple surfaces. The reliefs at Karnak and Luxor appear on external surfaces, on the respective temple's western walls. Regardless of their placement, all of them share a similar orientation, facing west, in the direction of Amun’s sanctuary, at the rear of the Ramesseum. At Abu Simbel the relief present over the north wall is also in the direction of the Ramesseum. Rameses II's documentation and record of the battle and the choice of locations for these reliefs, signifies the importance of this crucial event in his life. The orientation of these reliefs, and the locations at which they were placed, were probably dictated by their purposeful dedication to the main protagonists in this battle, Rameses and Amun.
The secondary sources all essentially agree to the outline of the battle presented earlier. Manley offers a very brief interpretation, while those of Kitchen and Redford are more detailed. Manley argues that the battle ended in a stalemate(92), and Redford claims that Rameses barely escaped death or capture, being 'worsted by the Hittites'(185). Kitchen claims that Rameses escaped with a 'victory of narrow personal brilliance'(63).
In any case, after the battle sources seem to contradict the success of the Egyptians. One third of the Egyptian army was slaughtered, and Hittite casualties were most likely around the same since they too had been surprised and hit from the rear. Rameses II would go on to blame his troops for the failed victory, and continued to express the skirmish as a personal battle in which he defeated the Hittites alone(Breasted 147)., Kitchen's interpretation w=essentially agrees with the primary sources, since even the poem makes no claim that Rameses captured Kadesh(Breasted 142). Additionally, after the battle Syria remained strongly in Hittite hands, with Kadesh and Amurru retaken into the Hittite fold(Kitchen 63). Even some lands to the south, Damascus and Upi, fell to Muwatallis(Kitchen 63). Even though Rameses had essentially suffered a 'political defeat', losing land to the Hittites, he 'put on a triumphal display of prisoners and booty' as he returned (Kitchen 63).
Kitchen's interpretation resonates with me since it addresses various aspects of the story while staying in line with the primary sources. I believe that Rameses knew that he had been lucky. To salvage what he could out of his defeat, he paraded the event as a victory for himself. He had reliefs made at numerous locations to project an image of a powerful king, one with great courage and battlefield tact, and one favored by the gods. Therefore, in my opinion, the most likely outcome of the battle was a tactical draw and a victory for the Hittites in the strategic sense, therefore reaffirming Kitchen's interpretation.
The consequences of the events that transpired at Kadesh vary in the detail with which they are covered in the secondary sources. All secondary sources agree in the fact that Kadesh and Amurru came under Hittite control soon after the battle and also that a peace treaty was agreed upon between Rameses and the Hittites in year 21, as per the Egyptian record at Karnak(Redford 186). Redford's account is the most detailed regarding what transpired after the war between these two events. He may have had to leave without victory, but Rameses would not lay dormant, campaigning actively to win back Palestine around the year 1278, eventually laying siege on Dapur, in the land of Qode(Redford 186). These events are corroborated by primary sources from Rameses II's reign through the inscriptions and reliefs at Luxor and Thebes(Redford 187). Rameses exhibited great resolve in returning on a path he had already travelled, proving his mettle and laying claim on what he believed was rightfully his.
WORKS CITED:
- Breasted, J. H. trans. “Official Record of the Battle of Kadesh,” Ancient Records of Egypt III (London, repr. 1988): 142-157.
- Baines, J. and Malek, J. “The Army,” Atlas of Ancient Egypt (New York, 1988): 202-203.
- Manley, B. “The Road to Kadesh,” The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt (London,1996): 92-93.
- Kitchen, K. A. Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II
(Warminster,1982): 50-64.
- Redford, D. “The Egypto-Hittite War” and “The Treaty between Egypt and Khatte,” Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, 1992): 177-189.
- Shaw, I. "Egypt and the Outside World," in I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient
Egypt . Chapter 11 (pages 314-329).